DETAILED ACTION
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, see applicant remarks, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 84 and 85 under 35 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Ayres et al (US 20170363811 A1); hereinafter Ayres.
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/16/2025 regarding claim 91 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the reference does not contemplate two permanently left-and right-hand-polarized emitter groups driven in antiphase, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 84 and 85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshel et al (WO2019183376A1); hereinafter Marshel in view of Taboada et al (US20120016174A1); hereinafter Taboada (both cited previously) and Ayres et al (US 20170363811 A1); hereinafter Ayres.
Regarding claim 84, Marshel teaches a method for performing electromagnetic radiation therapy on a subject (irradiating a sample comprising a plurality of light-responsive neurons with a plurality of holographic images that are each configured to stimulate one or more light-responsive neurons in the sample) , comprising:
providing an electromagnetic radiation fixture equipped with an LED array (Optical stimulation and imaging were performed using a 40x/0.6-NA objective (Leica), sCMOS camera (Hamamatsu, ORCA-Flash4.0) and LED light source (Spectra X Light engine, Lumencor), all coupled to a Leica DMI 6000 B microscope)
positioning the electromagnetic radiation fixture such that electromagnetic radiation emitted by the fixture is directed at the subject (images that are each configured to stimulate one or more light-responsive neurons in the sample, wherein the holographic images are created by light projection system that includes: a plurality of light sources- shining light at the neurons means shining light at the subject); and
oscillating the LED array between first and second illumination states selected from the group consisting of
(j) a first illumination state in which the first set of LEDs are illuminated and the second set of LEDs are not illuminated, and a second illumination state in which the first set of LEDs are not illuminated and the second set of LEDs are illuminated (the light source may be staggered, such that there is temporal delay between pulses from each light source).
Marshel fails to teach the light source is polarized. Taboada teaches (i) a first set of LEDs which emit electromagnetic radiation in a first polarization state, and (ii) a second set of LEDs which emit electromagnetic radiation in a second polarization state ([0053] The light within the speckle fields or islands containing these intensity spikes is polarized). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Marshal with Taboada because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Taboada teaches that in certain embodiments, this polarized light provides enhanced efficacy beyond that for unpolarized light of the same intensity or irradiance ([0053]).
The combination of Marshel and Taboada fails to teach the first polarization state is circular and the second polarization state is elliptical. Ayres teaches the first polarization state is circular and the second polarization state is elliptical ([0094] various polarization states of light (circular and elliptical states)…may convert p-polarized light to a first elliptical state at a first propagation and may convert p-polarized light to a second elliptical state upon a second propagation, [0089] of course, it will be appreciated that several variations of the foregoing embodiment are possible. For example, in some embodiments, the polarizer array may contain only two or three types of polarizers. It will also be appreciated that any of the polarizers in the polarizer array may be independently selected from the group consisting of linear, circular or elliptical polarizers, or that some of the polarizers in the polarizer array may be replaced with nonpolarizing elements). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshel and Taboada with Ayres because there it is obvious to try. Ayres discloses using elliptical and circular polarizations, but doesn't specifically disclose using first elliptical polarization and a second circular polarization together as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to try since Ayres provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (two possibilities: circular or elliptical), each having a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 85, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. Marshel further teaches the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electromagnetic radiation fixture is unpolarized in the first polarization state and is polarized in the second polarization state (if the irradiation is staggered, then one light source must inherently must be off).
Claim(s) 86,87,89, and 95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres in view of Coppeta et al (US20100253769A1); hereinafter Coppeta (cited previously).
Regarding claim 86, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. The combination fails to teach linear polarization. Coppeta teaches the electromagnetic radiation is linearly polarized in the first polarization state ([0171] wave plates change polarization states of the light) and has an electric field which is confined to a first plane that is orthogonal to the direction of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation in the first polarization state ([0171] Half wave plates make a 180 degree phase difference such that linearly or circularly polarized light is converted to the orthogonal polarization state) , wherein the electromagnetic radiation is linearly polarized in the second polarization state ([0171] wave plates change polarization states of the light) and has an electric field which is confined to a second plane that is orthogonal to the direction of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation in the second polarization state, and wherein the first and second planes are not coplanar ([0171] Half wave plates make a 180 degree phase difference such that linearly or circularly polarized light is converted to the orthogonal polarization state). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshel/Taboada/Ayres with Coppeta because linear polarization is a simple substitution of one embodiment of polarization.
Regarding claim 87, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. The combination fails to teach circular polarization. Coppeta teaches the electromagnetic radiation is circularly polarized in the first polarization state ([0171] wave plates change polarization states of the light) and has an electric field which is confined to a first plane that is orthogonal to the direction of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation in the first polarization state ([0171] Half wave plates make a 180 degree phase difference such that linearly or circularly polarized light is converted to the orthogonal polarization state), wherein the electromagnetic radiation is circularly polarized in the second polarization state ([0171] wave plates change polarization states of the light) and has an electric field which is confined to a second plane that is orthogonal to the direction of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation in the second polarization state, and wherein the first and second planes are not coplanar ([0171] Half wave plates make a 180 degree phase difference such that linearly or circularly polarized light is converted to the orthogonal polarization state). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshel and Taboada with Coppeta because circular polarization is a simple substitution of one embodiment of polarization.
Regarding claim 89, the combination of Marshal, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. Coppeta further teaches the electromagnetic radiation is linearly polarized in the first polarization state, and is circularly polarized in the second polarization state ([0171] wave plates change polarization states of the light). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshel and Taboada with Coppeta because circular polarization is a simple substitution of one embodiment of polarization.
Regarding claim 95, the combination of Marshal, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. The combination fails to teach a fixture with a polarizer array disposed over the LED array. Coppeta teaches the electromagnetic radiation fixture is further equipped with a polarizer array disposed over the LED array ([0157] polarizing filter), wherein the polarizer array includes a plurality of polarizers, and wherein each LED in the LED array has one of said plurality of polarizers disposed in an output optical path of the LED (fig 12 part 1206 polarizing filter). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshal and Taboada because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Para. [0157] outlines how there can be different colors of light that need to be filtered.
Claim(s) 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres in view of Ayari et al (US20070161883); hereinafter Ayari (cited previously).
Regarding claim 91, the combination of Marshal, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. The combination of Marshal and Taboada fails to teach the electromagnetic radiation is circularly polarized in the first and second polarization state. Ayari teaches the electromagnetic radiation is circularly polarized in a left-handed orientation in the first polarization state, and is circularly polarized in a right-handed orientation in the second polarization state ([0105] discrete states of polarization, circular, oriented right or left). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshal and Taboada with Ayari because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Ayari teaches that there is a motivation to provide a system with more flexibility and a larger variety of modes to treat the patient with a more targeted treatment ([0130]).
Claim(s) 96,97,98,and 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres in view of Smith et al (US 20160287898 A1); hereinafter Smith (cited previously).
Regarding claim 96, the combination of Marshal, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. Smith teaches the first illumination state is a state in which the first set of LEDs are illuminated and the second set of LEDs are not illuminated, and wherein the second illumination state is a state in which the first set of LEDs are not illuminated and the second set of LEDs are illuminated ([0028] each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be individually turned on or off, and output of each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be controlled individually). It would be obvious from the teachings of Smith to define the illumination states in terms of power supply or current because it yields the same result of an on and off state. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Coppeta and Attia with Smith because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Smith teaches that this setup of powering different parts of the LED array and off allows the optogenetic stimulus pattern or shape to be reconfigurable on-the-fly and adaptable to physiological changes ([0028]).
Regarding claim 97, the combination of Marshal, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. Smith teaches the first illumination state is a state in which the first set of LEDs are powered on and the second set of LEDs are powered off, and wherein the second illumination state is a state in which the first set of LEDs are powered off and the second set of LEDs are powered on ([0028] each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be individually turned on or off, and output of each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be controlled individually). It would be obvious from the teachings of Smith to define the illumination states in terms of power supply or current because it yields the same result of an on and off state. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Coppeta and Attia with Smith because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Smith teaches that this setup of powering different parts of the LED array and off allows the optogenetic stimulus pattern or shape to be reconfigurable on-the-fly and adaptable to physiological changes ([0028]).
Regarding claim 98, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. Smith teaches the first illumination state is a state in which the power supply to the first set of LEDs is at a maximum and the power supplied to the second set of LEDs is at a minimum, and wherein the second illumination state is a state in which the power supply to the first set of LEDs is at a minimum and the power supply to the second set of LEDs is at a maximum ([0028] each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be individually turned on or off, and output of each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be controlled individually). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Coppeta and Attia with Smith because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Smith teaches that this setup of powering different parts of the LED array and off allows the optogenetic stimulus pattern or shape to be reconfigurable on-the-fly and adaptable to physiological changes ([0028]).
Regarding claim 99, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Ayres teaches the method of claim 84. Smith teaches the first illumination state is a state in which the current supplied to the first set of LEDs is I11 and the power supplied to the second set of LEDs is I12, and wherein the second illumination state is a state in which the power supply to the first set of LEDs is I21 and the power supply to the second set of LEDs is I22, wherein I11>I21 and I12<I22 ([0028] each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be individually turned on or off, and output of each OLED or each group of OLEDs can be controlled individually). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Coppeta and Attia with Smith because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Smith teaches that this setup of powering different parts of the LED array and off allows the optogenetic stimulus pattern or shape to be reconfigurable on-the-fly and adaptable to physiological changes ([0028]).
Claim(s) 104 and 105 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshel and Taboada in view of Attia et al (US20160008568); hereinafter Attia (cited previously).
Regarding claim 104, Marshel teaches a method for performing electromagnetic radiation therapy on a subject (irradiating a sample comprising a plurality of light-responsive neurons with a plurality of holographic images that are each configured to stimulate one or more light-responsive neurons in the sample) , comprising:
providing an electromagnetic radiation fixture equipped with an LED array (Optical stimulation and imaging were performed using a 40x/0.6-NA objective (Leica), sCMOS camera (Hamamatsu, ORCA-Flash4.0) and LED light source (Spectra X Light engine, Lumencor), all coupled to a Leica DMI 6000 B microscope)
positioning the electromagnetic radiation fixture such that electromagnetic radiation emitted by the fixture is directed at the subject (images that are each configured to stimulate one or more light-responsive neurons in the sample, wherein the holographic images are created by light projection system that includes: a plurality of light sources- shining light at the neurons means shining light at the subject); and
oscillating the LED array between first and second illumination states selected from the group consisting of
(j) a first illumination state in which the first set of LEDs are illuminated and the second set of LEDs are not illuminated, and a second illumination state in which the first set of LEDs are not illuminated and the second set of LEDs are illuminated (the light source may be staggered, such that there is temporal delay between pulses from each light source).
Marshel fails to teach the light source is polarized. Taboada teaches (i) a first set of LEDs which emit electromagnetic radiation in a first polarization state, and (ii) a second set of LEDs which emit electromagnetic radiation in a second polarization state ([0053] The light within the speckle fields or islands containing these intensity spikes is polarized). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Marshal with Taboada because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Taboada teaches that in certain embodiments, this polarized light provides enhanced efficacy beyond that for unpolarized light of the same intensity or irradiance ([0053]).
The combination fails to teach the mental task. Attia teaches
(a) determining at least one brainwave frequency which is associated with a mental task (table 2 - brainwave type matched to specific relaxation goals); and
(b) performing brainwave entrainment on the subject ([0037] table 2 matches light colors to different brainwave entrainment patterns) using the at least one brainwave frequency by oscillating the LED array between the first and second illumination states at the at least one brainwave frequency ([0035] The resulting perceived light intensity may be changed by tune domain modulation of the nominally constant LED current using a repetitive on/off command). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshal and Taboada with Attia because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Attia teaches the motivation being to provide a process focused upon selecting among typical goals (stress reduction, ability to concentrate, energy level, mood improvement and sense of well-being [0031]).
The above combination does not disclose that the first and second frequencies are components of a nested waveform, however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination to use nested waveforms because it would be obvious to try. There are a limited number of methods to provide multiple frequencies to a stimulation device so nested waveforms is one of only a few options to deliver multiple frequencies.
Regarding claim 105, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Attia teaches the method of claim 104. Attia further teaches determining at least one brainwave frequency which is associated with a mental task includes:
(a) obtaining an electroencephalogram (EEG) from the subject while the subject is performing the mental task ([0040] information collected during an active session includes EEG); and
(b) determining the at least one brainwave frequency from the EEG ([0040] describes performing Laplacian or Fourier transforms which is involved in frequency determination).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshal and Taboada with Attia because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Attia teaches the motivation being to provide a process focused upon selecting among typical goals (stress reduction, ability to concentrate, energy level, mood improvement and sense of well-being [0031]).
Claim(s) 106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshel, Taboada, and Attia further in view of Siegelmann et al (US 20190247662 A1); hereinafter Siegelmann (cited previously).
Regarding claim 106, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Attia teaches the method of claim 104. The combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Attia fails to teach that the mental task includes simultaneous maintenance of multiple items in working memory. Siegelmann teaches the mental task includes the simultaneous maintenance of multiple items in working memory ([0012] multitasking principles also apply when managing multiple items working memory). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination with Siegelmann because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Siegelmann teaches that the maintenance of multiple items in working memory is a key to multitasking which is an important human skill ([0011]-[0012]).
Claim(s) 107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshel and Taboada in view of Attia et al (US20160008568); hereinafter Attia (cited previously) further in view of Ayres et al (US 20170363811 A1); hereinafter Ayres.
Regarding claim 107, the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Attia teaches the method of claim 104. Ayres teaches the first polarization state is circular and the second polarization state is elliptical ([0094] various polarization states of light (circular and elliptical states)…may convert p-polarized light to a first elliptical state at a first propagation and may convert p-polarized light to a second elliptical state upon a second propagation, [0089] of course, it will be appreciated that several variations of the foregoing embodiment are possible. For example, in some embodiments, the polarizer array may contain only two or three types of polarizers. It will also be appreciated that any of the polarizers in the polarizer array may be independently selected from the group consisting of linear, circular or elliptical polarizers, or that some of the polarizers in the polarizer array may be replaced with nonpolarizing elements). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Marshel, Taboada, and Attia with Ayres because there it is obvious to try. Ayres discloses using elliptical and circular polarizations, but doesn't specifically disclose using first elliptical polarization and a second circular polarization together as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to try since Ayres provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (two possibilities: circular or elliptical), each having a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 88, 90,and 92-94 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 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, 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796