DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the communicated dated 20 March 2026 concerning application number 17/757,404 effectively filed on 15 June 2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-23 and 107-108 are pending, of which claims 1, 107, and 108 have been amended; claims 24-106 and 109-117 have been cancelled; and claims 1-23 and 107-108 are under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments dated 20 March 2026, referred to herein as “the Arguments”, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations within the updated text below.
Applicant argues that Suntych does not teach a single color spectrum within 50 nm (see pages 10-11 of the Arguments). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Suntych teaches individual or single color spectrums having a wavelength that ranges from 0.1 to 200 nm ([0057, 0080]). Furthermore, Applicant’s claimed wavelength range of “within 50 nm” is overlapped by Suntych’s wavelength range of 0.1 nm to 200 nm ([0080]). Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a wavelength within 50 nm for each of the respective single-color spectrums that are associated with the first and second components (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may enhance the desired response, such as a behavioral response from the organism (see paragraphs [0057, 0080-0081, 0084]). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Suntych suggests a single-color spectrum within 50 nm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1-7, 9-22, and 107-108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntych (US 2018/0184623 A1) in view of Ashdown et al. (US 2017/0295727 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 107, and 108, Suntych teaches a method ([abstract, 0004]), a system (the photon modulation management system 100 [abstract, 0004, 0071]), and a computer readable medium comprising instructions that are executed by one or more processors of the system for inducing a desired biological response in an organism (the photon modulation management system 100 comprises a processor or master logic controller 102 (e.g., solid-state circuit with a central processing unit) that is configured to execute instructions which causes the photon modulation management system 100 to induce a desired response in a bird [0004, 0050, 0071-0073]), wherein the method and system comprises:
identifying the desired biological response of the organism (the desired response may include ovulation, hunger, egg production, growth, sexual maturity, behavior, socialization, and interpolation of circadian inputs [0004, 0050]);
providing a controller (the master logic controller 102 (e.g., central processing unit) communicates with the photon emission modulation controller 104 [0004, 0072, 0075]);
providing at least one LED light in communication with said controller (the photon emitters 106 and 108 comprises LEDs 302, 304, 306, and 308 that are in communication with the photon emission modulation controller 104 [0096]), wherein said at least one LED light receives a command from said controller for a desired biological response from said organism (the photon emission modulation controller 104 provides commands or control signals 136 to the LEDs 302, 304, 306, and 308 of the photon emitters 106 and 108 [0005, 0075, 0096]);
providing a repetitive signal that is capable of being emitted from said at least one LED light (the LEDs 302, 304, 306, and 308 of the photon emitters 106 and 108 are configured to provide repetitive photon pulses [0004, 0075, 0096]), wherein the signal comprises at least two photon components (the first and second photon signals 118 may be delivered at differing wavelengths for produce a desired biological response [0004, 0052, 0076, 0089]. The first and second photon signals 118 may also be referred to as the first and second independent components [0004, 0052, 0076, 0089]), wherein the first component is a biological response initiation component that is comprised of at least one single color spectrum between 0.1 nm and 200 nm of the peak absorption of a photoreceptor of an organism corresponding to the desired biological response (the first photon signal 118 (e.g., first independent component) consist of a color spectrum having a wavelength between 0.1 nm and 200 nm that is delivered to a photoreceptor (e.g., phytochromes and/or opsins) of the bird to induce a desired biological response (e.g., ovulation, egg production, growth, behavior, socialization, or interpolation of circadian inputs) [0050, 0057, 0076, 0080, 0089]. Specifically, the photoreceptor (e.g., phytochromes) may switch between the cis and trans configurations when dosed with differing wavelengths of light [0060]); and
wherein the second component is a reset component comprised of a single color spectrum between 0.1 nm and 200 nm of the peak absorption of a photoreceptor of the organism corresponding to the reset of the desired biological response of the organism through the stimulation and reset of the photoreceptor associated with the desired response (as stated previously above, the first and second photon signals 118 (e.g., the first and second independent components) may be delivered at differing wavelengths for produce a desired biological response [0004, 0052, 0076, 0089]. Specifically, the second photon signal 118 (e.g., the second independent component) consist of a color spectrum having a wavelength between 0.1 nm and 200 nm that is delivered to a photoreceptor (e.g., phytochromes and/or opsins) of the bird to reset biological response (e.g., changing behavior and/or reset of circadian rhythm) [0050, 0057, 0076, 0080, 0121]. Specifically, the photoreceptor (e.g., phytochromes) may be reset or switched from the trans configuration to the cis configuration when dosed with a differing wavelength of light [0060]); and
emitting said signal from said at least one LED light toward the organism (the photon emitters 106 and 108 comprises LEDs 302, 304, 306, and 308 that are configured to emit light at the bird to induce the desired response [0004, 0052, 0075, 0096]), wherein the relationship between the first component and the second component of said signal induces the desired biological response of the organism (the first and second independent components (e.g., the first and second photon signals 118) may be provided simultaneously to induce the desired biological response [0004, 0050, 0052, 0076, 0089]).
Suntych does not explicitly teach wherein the single-color spectrum of each of the first and second components are respectively within 50 nm.
However, Applicant’s claimed wavelength range of “within 50 nm” is overlapped by Suntych’s wavelength range of 0.1 nm to 200 nm ([0080]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a wavelength within 50 nm for each of the respective single-color spectrums that are associated with the first and second components (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may enhance the desired response, such as a behavioral response from the organism (see paragraphs [0057, 0080-0081, 0084]).
Suntych does not explicitly teach aliasing from said repetitive signal to induce the organism to change or adjust the organism’s temporal perception.
The prior art by Ashdown is analogous to Suntych, as they both teach a light treatment that affects the behavior of a living organism ([abstract]).
Ashdown teaches aliasing from said repetitive signal to induce the organism to change or adjust the organism’s temporal perception (the light source may produce a repetitive signal (e.g., temporal modulation or flickering of light) that can influence an animal’s health and behavior patterns (e.g., mood) for horticultural, agricultural, or aquacultural endeavors [abstract]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Suntych’s repetitive signal to cause a change in the organism’s temporal perception, as taught by Ashdown. This modification is beneficial, as the flickering or temporal modulation of light will influence the living organism’s health and behavior patterns (e.g., mood) for horticultural, agricultural, or aquacultural endeavors (see the [abstract] by Ashdown).
Regarding claim 2, Suntych teaches wherein said photon signal is directed to a photoreceptor biphasic molecule of said organism (the photon signal is directed to a photoreceptor biphasic molecule (e.g., opsins and/or phytochrome) of the organism [0057-0058, 0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Suntych teaches wherein the biphasic molecule is chosen from opsins or a phytochrome (the photon signal is directed to a photoreceptor biphasic molecule (e.g., opsins and/or phytochrome) of the organism [0057-0058, 0071]).
Regarding claim 4, Suntych teaches wherein said first component initiates the excitation of said biphasic molecule (the first photon signal 118 (e.g., first independent component) consist of a color spectrum that is delivered to a photoreceptor (e.g., phytochromes and/or opsins) of the bird to induce a desired biological response (e.g., ovulation, egg production, growth, behavior, socialization, or interpolation of circadian inputs) [0004, 0050, 0057, 0076, 0080]) and the second component initiates the reset of the biphasic molecule (as stated previously in claim 1, the first and second photon signals 118 (e.g., the first and second independent components) may be delivered at differing wavelengths for produce a desired biological response [0004, 0052, 0076, 0089]. Specifically, the second photon signal 118 (e.g., the second independent component) consist of a color spectrum that is delivered to a photoreceptor (e.g., phytochromes and/or opsins) of the bird to reset biological response (e.g., changing behavior and/or reset of circadian rhythm) [0050, 0057, 0076, 0080, 0121]. Specifically, the photoreceptor (e.g., phytochromes) may be reset or switched from the trans configuration to the cis configuration when dosed with a differing wavelength of light [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Suntych teaches wherein said biological response is chosen from fertility, ovulation, hunger, egg production, sexual maturity, behavior and socialization, and interpolation of circadian inputs ([0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Suntych teaches wherein said photon signal further comprises a third or more component ([claim 2]).
Regarding claim 7, Suntych teaches wherein said third or more component initiates a second or more desired biological response ([claims 1-2]).
Regarding claim 9, Suntych teaches monitoring the organism ([0062]); and
changing the photon signal directed to said organism to produce a different desired biological response (the photon emission modulation controller 104 is configured to change or modulate the emission of the photon signal to induce a wide range of desired responses [0071, 0081-0084]).
Regarding claim 10, Suntych teaches wherein the first component and the second component each have one or more intensities ([0004]).
Regarding claim 11, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 10. Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach wherein the intensity is between 5% and 200%.
However, Suntych teaches that the intensity can be customized or adjusted to achieve a desired response from the organism ([0057]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the sensitivity between 5% and 200%. The advantage of such modification may enhance the desired the response, such as the behavioral response from the organism ([0057]). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at the claimed intensity via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Suntych teaches wherein the intensity is tuned specifically to the desired biological response (the intensity can be customized or adjusted to achieve a desired response from the organism [0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Suntych teaches wherein the first component and the second component each have one or more wavelength colors ([0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Suntych teaches wherein said one or more wavelength colors is chosen from the group comprising near red, far-red, blue, infra-red, yellow, orange, and ultra-violet ([0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 1. Suntych teaches wherein the first component and the second component each have at least one ON duration between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]).
Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach wherein the ON duration is between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 microseconds.
However, Applicant’s claimed duration ranging between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 microseconds lies within Suntych’s duration ranging between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify ON duration to be between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 microseconds (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may enhance the desired the response, such as the egg production from the organism ([0004, 0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 15. Suntych teaches wherein said at least one ON duration is between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]).
Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach wherein the ON duration is between 0.01 microseconds and 999 microseconds.
However, Applicant’s claimed duration ranging between 0.01 microseconds and 999 milliseconds lies within Suntych’s duration ranging between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify ON duration to be between 0.01 microseconds and 999 milliseconds (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may enhance the desired the response, such as the egg production from the organism ([0004, 0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 15. Suntych teaches wherein said at least one ON duration is between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]).
Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach wherein the ON duration is between 999 microseconds and 99 milliseconds.
However, Applicant’s claimed duration ranging between 999 microseconds and 99 milliseconds lies within Suntych’s duration ranging between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify ON duration to be between 999 microseconds and 99 milliseconds (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may enhance the desired the response, such as the egg production from the organism ([0004, 0050]).
Regarding claim 18, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 15. Suntych teaches wherein said at least one ON duration is between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]).
Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach wherein the ON duration is between 99 milliseconds and 999 milliseconds.
However, Applicant’s claimed duration ranging between 99 milliseconds and 999 milliseconds lies within Suntych’s duration ranging between 0.01 microseconds and 5000 milliseconds ([0004]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify ON duration to be between 99 milliseconds and 999 milliseconds (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may enhance the desired the response, such as the egg production from the organism ([0004, 0050]).
Regarding claim 19, Suntych teaches wherein the first component and the second component each have an OFF duration between 0.1 microseconds and 24 hours ([0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Suntych teaches wherein the timing of initiation of the rise of the ON duration of second component is after the fall of the ON duration of the first component (the second photon signal 118 (e.g., the second photon component) may be provided after the emission of the first photon signal 118 (e.g., the first photon component) [0004, 0076]. Specifically, there is a delay of 200 milliseconds between the emission of the first photon signal 118 and the second photon signal 118 [0076]).
Regarding claim 21, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 1. Suntych teaches wherein the LED light is turned off for a period of 0.1 microseconds to 24 hours and then the LED light is turned back on and the emission of said repetitive photon signal is repeated (the photon emitters 106 and 108 comprises LEDs 302, 304, 306, and 308 that may be turned off for a period of 0.1 microseconds to 24 hours and then turned back on to provide emission of the repetitive photon pulses [0004, 0064, 0075, 0096]).
Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach wherein the LED is turned off for a period of 1 to 10 minutes.
However, Applicant’s claimed time range of 1 to 10 minutes lies within Suntych’s claimed time range of 0.1 microseconds to 24 hours. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ([0004, 0075, 0096]). Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the time that LED is turned off to range from 1 to 10 minutes (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may improve the control of the desired biological response, such as the ovulation and growth of the organism ([0004, 0087]).
Regarding claim 22, Suntych teaches monitoring the biological response produced by said organism ([0062]);
and adjusting the photon signal from said and the relationship of initiation component and the reset component to improve the organism's biological response (the photon emission modulation controller 104 is configured to adjust or modulate the emission of the first and second photon signals 118 (e.g., first photon component and second photon component) to improve or achieve the desired response [0062, 0071, 0076, 0081]).
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntych in view of Ashdown et al., further in view of Grajcar (US 2014/0159615 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 6. Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach wherein said third or more component is in constant illumination.
The prior art by Grajcar is analogous to Suntych, as they both teach light emitting devices that are configured to control an animal ‘s (e.g., bird) growth or behavior ([0003, 0018]).
Grajcar teaches wherein said third or more component is in constant illumination (the light emitting components 120 can emit a constant blue light [0006, 0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the third component suggested by Suntych in view of Ashdown to be in constant illumination, as taught by Grajcar. The advantage of such modification will further enhance the animal’s (e.g., bird) growth and/or behavior (see paragraphs [0003, 0006, 0008, 0018, 0118] by Grajcar).
8. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntych in view of Ashdown et al., further in view of Sadwick (US 2018/0112837 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Suntych in view of Ashdown suggests the method of claim 1. Suntych and Ashdown do not explicitly teach placing a light meter under the LED light, wherein the light meter receives the photon signal emitted by the LED light.
The prior art by Sadwick is analogous to Suntych, as they both teach light emitting devices that can regulate the circadian rhythm of birds [0004, 0171-0172]).
Sadwick teaches placing a light meter under the LED light, wherein the light meter receives the photon signal emitted by the LED light (the light meter or sensors (e.g., light sensor, optical detector, or wavelength sensor) may be attached to any location of the solid-state lighting (SSL) lamp using double sided tape, 3M command contact, supports, screws, or rivets [abstract, 0004, 0026, 0171]. For example, the user may utilize double sided tape to attach the sensors under the SSL lamp [0026, 0171]. Furthermore, the sensors may communicate with the solid-state lighting lamp via a wired or wireless connection [0026]. Specifically, the solid-state lighting lamps consist of LEDs [0003, 0026, 0070, 0171]. The Examiner respectfully submits that light sensor, optical detectors, and/or wavelength sensors are known to detect and measure one or more parameters of a light (e.g., photon) signal [0026, 0171]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method suggested by Suntych in view of Ashdown to consist of a light meter that is placed under the LED light to receive the photon signal, as taught by Sadwick. The advantage of such modification will allow for measuring the wavelength of the light or photon signal (see paragraphs [0026, 0171-0172] by Sadwick).
Statement on Communication via Internet
9. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
10. 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 JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights