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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment field on February 05, 2024 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 6-42, 44-45, 47-59, 61-73, 76-93, 95-100, 102-120, 122-131 and 133-142 are canceled. Claims 3-5, 46, 60, 74 and 132 are amended. Claims 1-5, 43, 46, 60, 74-75, 94, 101, 121 and 132 are pending and under examination in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 11, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 23, 2021 are accepted.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 43, 46, 60, 74-75, 94, 101, 121 and 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malchano et al., US 2023/0166072 A1, hereinafter Malchano, in view of Ogasawara et al., US 2012/0310038 A1, hereinafter Ogasawara, evidenced by Maslik et al., US 2020/0178892, hereinafter Maslik.
Claim 1. Malchano teaches a method ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof), comprising:
administering, to a subject not indicated for treatment of photophobia ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method of treating the sleep disorder comprising administering…a visual stimulus at a frequency effective to improve brain wave coherence; Malchano does not indicate that the subject is for treatment of photophobia), green light having a characteristic wavelength ([0152[: the light generation module 110 can instruct the visual signaling component 150 to generate visual signals comprising one or more light waves having one or more wavelength corresponding to one or more of…green (e.g., 495-570 nm)).
Malchano does not teach that the green light has a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and the administering is within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep.
However, in an analogous green-light treatment-based method for inducing sleep field of endeavor, Ogasawara teaches
administering, to a subject not indicated for treatment of photophobia, green light having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum ([0062]: the excellent sleep inducing effect of the sound sleep inducing apparatus; [0063]: 3-1) ultra-narrow band light projecting means which generates green ultra-narrow band light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm and a half band-width of 10 nm or less; and [0064] 3-2) diffusing means which diffuses an irradiation area of the light projected from the ultra-narrow band light projecting means to the entire face of a person; and [0008]: the half bandwidth refers to a width of a wavelength of light having intensity half of the center wavelength (peak wavelength) of a light source. Ogasawara does not indicate that the subject is for treatment of photophobia, either) within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep ([0029]: the irradiation time is 5 to 15 minutes and approximately 30 minutes at the longest; [0033]: illuminance close to the face of a patient laying on the bed is adjusted).
In regard to the claimed wavelength range for the green light between 510 nm and 550 nm, Ogasawara teaches a green light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm.
For the best interest of compact prosecution, Maslik is further cited to evidence that the green light used for a sleep treatment may have a wavelength range between 510 and 550 nm ([0086]: In green light, 550 nanometers is the most biological effective wavelength; and [0103]: green light, particularly wavelength of around 550 nanometers, can be most effective at suppressing melatonin secretion when the duration of exposure is less than 1.6 hours, and even 15 minutes can be enough…) – 550 nanometer reads on the range of 510 nm and 550 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the green light administration of Malchano employ such features associated with “having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and administering within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep” as taught in Ogasawara for the advantage of “providing a sleep induction device which exhibits excellent hypnotic effects using light”, as suggested in Ogasawara, Abstract.
Claim 2. Ogasawara further teaches
extinguishing the green light after the subject goes to sleep ([0029]: the irradiation time is 5 to 15 minutes and approximately 30 minutes at the longest; and [0033]: by projecting the blue to green light without turning of the light at the bedtime) – not turning off the light at bedtime but having a limited irradiation time indicates that the light is continued to be administered after the subject goes to sleep yet is eventually turned off.
Claim 3. Ogasawara further teaches
continuing to administer the green light after the subject goes to sleep ([0029]: the irradiation time is 5 to 15 minutes and approximately 30 minutes at the longest; and [0033]: by projecting the blue to green light without turning of the light at the bedtime) – not turning off the light at bedtime but having a limited irradiation time indicates that the light is continued to be administered after the subject goes to sleep.
Claim 4. Malchano further teaches that
the subject is diagnosed with insomnia ([0476]: Embodiment 23. The method of Embodiment 19, wherein the sleep disorder comprises insomnia).
Claim 5. Malchano further teaches that
the subject has a disrupted circadian rhythm ([0065]: technologies directed at producing beneficial changes in actigraphy are further directed at producing beneficial sleep-related health outcomes…include one or more of…reduction of circadian rhythm disruptions).
Claim 43. Malchano teaches a method ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof), comprising:
administering, to a subject diagnosed with insomnia ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method of treating the sleep disorder comprising administering…a visual stimulus at a frequency effective to improve brain wave coherence; and [0476]: Embodiment 23. The method of Embodiment 19, wherein the sleep disorder comprises insomnia), green light having a characteristic wavelength ([0152]: the light generation module 110 can instruct the visual signaling component 150 to generate visual signals comprising one or more light waves having one or more wavelength corresponding to one or more of…green (e.g., 495-570 nm)).
Malchano does not teach that the green light has a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and the administering is within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep.
However, in an analogous green-light treatment-based method for inducing sleep field of endeavor, Ogasawara teaches
administering, to a subject, green light having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum ([0062]: the excellent sleep inducing effect of the sound sleep inducing apparatus; [0063]: 3-1) ultra-narrow band light projecting means which generates green ultra-narrow band light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm and a half band-width of 10 nm or less; and [0064] 3-2) diffusing means which diffuses an irradiation area of the light projected from the ultra-narrow band light projecting means to the entire face of a person; and [0008]: the half bandwidth refers to a width of a wavelength of light having intensity half of the center wavelength (peak wavelength) of a light source) within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep ([0029]: the irradiation time is 5 to 15 minutes and approximately 30 minutes at the longest; [0033]: illuminance close to the face of a patient laying on the bed is adjusted).
In regard to the claimed wavelength range for the green light between 510 nm and 550 nm, Ogasawara teaches a green light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm.
For the best interest of compact prosecution, Maslik is further cited to evidence that the green light used for a sleep treatment may have a wavelength range between 510 and 550 nm ([0086]: In green light, 550 nanometers is the most biological effective wavelength; and [0103]: green light, particularly wavelength of around 550 nanometers, can be most effective at suppressing melatonin secretion when the duration of exposure is less than 1.6 hours, and even 15 minutes can be enough…) – 550 nanometer reads on the range of 510 nm and 550 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the green light administration of Malchano employ such features associated with “having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and administering within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep” as taught in Ogasawara for the advantage of “providing a sleep induction device which exhibits excellent hypnotic effects using light”, as suggested in Ogasawara, Abstract.
Claim 46. Ogasawara further teaches
extinguishing the green light after the subject goes to sleep ([0029]: the irradiation time is 5 to 15 minutes and approximately 30 minutes at the longest; and [0033]: by projecting the blue to green light without turning of the light at the bedtime) – not turning off the light at bedtime but having a limited irradiation time indicates that the light is continued to be administered after the subject goes to sleep yet is eventually turned off.
Claim 60. Malchano teaches a method ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof), comprising:
administering, to a subject suffering from a disrupted circadian rhythm ([0065]: technologies directed at producing beneficial changes in actigraphy are further directed at producing beneficial sleep-related health outcomes…include one or more of…reduction of circadian rhythm disruptions; and [0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method of treating the sleep disorder comprising administering…a visual stimulus at a frequency effective to improve brain wave coherence), green light having a characteristic wavelength ([0152[: the light generation module 110 can instruct the visual signaling component 150 to generate visual signals comprising one or more light waves having one or more wavelength corresponding to one or more of…green (e.g., 495-570 nm)).
Malchano does not teach that the green light has a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and the administering is within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep.
However, in an analogous green-light treatment-based method for inducing sleep field of endeavor, Ogasawara teaches
administering, to a subject, green light having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum ([0062]: the excellent sleep inducing effect of the sound sleep inducing apparatus; [0063]: 3-1) ultra-narrow band light projecting means which generates green ultra-narrow band light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm and a half band-width of 10 nm or less; and [0064] 3-2) diffusing means which diffuses an irradiation area of the light projected from the ultra-narrow band light projecting means to the entire face of a person; and [0008]: the half bandwidth refers to a width of a wavelength of light having intensity half of the center wavelength (peak wavelength) of a light source) within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep ([0029]: the irradiation time is 5 to 15 minutes and approximately 30 minutes at the longest; [0033]: illuminance close to the face of a patient laying on the bed is adjusted).
In regard to the claimed wavelength range for the green light between 510 nm and 550 nm, Ogasawara teaches a green light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm.
For the best interest of compact prosecution, Maslik is further cited to evidence that the green light used for a sleep treatment may have a wavelength range between 510 and 550 nm ([0086]: In green light, 550 nanometers is the most biological effective wavelength; and [0103]: green light, particularly wavelength of around 550 nanometers, can be most effective at suppressing melatonin secretion when the duration of exposure is less than 1.6 hours, and even 15 minutes can be enough…) – 550 nanometer reads on the range of 510 nm and 550 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the green light administration of Malchano employ such features associated with “having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and administering within 3 hours before the subject goes to sleep” as taught in Ogasawara for the advantage of “providing a sleep induction device which exhibits excellent hypnotic effects using light”, as suggested in Ogasawara, Abstract.
Claim 74. Malchano further teaches
administering the green light to the subject using a filter that filters light from a light source to produce the green light ([0175]: the shutter 430 or set of shutters 435 can include photochromic lenses configured to filter, attenuate or block light; and [0152]: the light generation module 110 can instruct the visual signaling component 150 to generate visual signals comprising one or more light waves having one or more wavelength corresponding to one or more of…green (e.g., 495-570 nm)).
Claim 75. Malchano further teaches that
the filter comprises glasses worn by the subject ([0069]: the non-invasive signal is delivered at least in part through glasses, goggles, a mask, or other worn apparatus that provide visual stimulation; and FIG.4B: the shutter 430 or set of shutters 435 is part of a pair of glasses 400).
Claim 94. Malchano teaches a method ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof), comprising:
administering, to a subject not indicated for treatment of photophobia ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method of treating the sleep disorder comprising administering…a visual stimulus at a frequency effective to improve brain wave coherence; Malchano does not indicate that the subject is for treatment of photophobia), green light having a characteristic wavelength ([0152[: the light generation module 110 can instruct the visual signaling component 150 to generate visual signals comprising one or more light waves having one or more wavelength corresponding to one or more of…green (e.g., 495-570 nm)).
Malchano does not teach that the green light has a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and a luminance of no more than 100 cd/m2.
However, in an analogous green-light treatment-based method for inducing sleep field of endeavor, Ogasawara teaches
administering, to a subject not indicated for treatment of photophobia, green light having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum ([0062]: the excellent sleep inducing effect of the sound sleep inducing apparatus; [0063]: 3-1) ultra-narrow band light projecting means which generates green ultra-narrow band light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm and a half band-width of 10 nm or less; and [0064] 3-2) diffusing means which diffuses an irradiation area of the light projected from the ultra-narrow band light projecting means to the entire face of a person; and [0008]: the half bandwidth refers to a width of a wavelength of light having intensity half of the center wavelength (peak wavelength) of a light source - Ogasawara does not indicate that the subject is for treatment of photophobia, either), and
and a luminance of no more than 100 cd/m2 ([0036]: its illuminance at the eye position in the face is preferably adjusted to 50 to 250 lux).
In regard to the claimed wavelength range for the green light between 510 nm and 550 nm, Ogasawara teaches a green light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm.
For the best interest of compact prosecution, Maslik is further cited to evidence that the green light used for a sleep treatment may have a wavelength range between 510 and 550 nm ([0086]: In green light, 550 nanometers is the most biological effective wavelength; and [0103]: green light, particularly wavelength of around 550 nanometers, can be most effective at suppressing melatonin secretion when the duration of exposure is less than 1.6 hours, and even 15 minutes can be enough…) – 550 nanometer reads on the range of 510 nm and 550 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the green light administration of Malchano employ such features associated with “having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and a luminance of no more than 100 cd/m2” as taught in Ogasawara for the advantage of “providing a sleep induction device which exhibits excellent hypnotic effects using light”, as suggested in Ogasawara, Abstract.
Claim 101. Malchano further teaches that
the subject is diagnosed as having an anxiety disorder ([0065]: technologies directed at producing beneficial changes in actigraphy are further directed at producing beneficial sleep-related health outcomes…include one or more of…reduction of circadian rhythm disruptions…In some embodiments, mitigated circadian rhythm disruptions include but are not limited to disruptions associated with…anxiety, stress).
Claim 121. Malchano teaches a method ([0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof), comprising:
administering, to a subject having an anxiety disorder ([0065]: technologies directed at producing beneficial changes in actigraphy are further directed at producing beneficial sleep-related health outcomes…include one or more of…reduction of circadian rhythm disruptions…In some embodiments, mitigated circadian rhythm disruptions include but are not limited to disruptions associated with…anxiety, stress; and [0472]: Embodiment 19. A method of treating a sleep disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method of treating the sleep disorder comprising administering…a visual stimulus at a frequency effective to improve brain wave coherence), green light having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm ([0152[: the light generation module 110 can instruct the visual signaling component 150 to generate visual signals comprising one or more light waves having one or more wavelength corresponding to one or more of…green (e.g., 495-570 nm)).
Malchano does not teach that the green light has a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and a luminance of no more than 100 cd/m2.
However, in an analogous green-light treatment-based method for inducing sleep field of endeavor, Ogasawara teaches
administering, green light having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum ([0062]: the excellent sleep inducing effect of the sound sleep inducing apparatus; [0063]: 3-1) ultra-narrow band light projecting means which generates green ultra-narrow band light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm and a half band-width of 10 nm or less; and [0064] 3-2) diffusing means which diffuses an irradiation area of the light projected from the ultra-narrow band light projecting means to the entire face of a person; and [0008]: the half bandwidth refers to a width of a wavelength of light having intensity half of the center wavelength (peak wavelength) of a light source), and
and a luminance of no more than 100 cd/m2 ([0036]: its illuminance at the eye position in the face is preferably adjusted to 50 to 250 lux).
In regard to the claimed wavelength range for the green light between 510 nm and 550 nm, Ogasawara teaches a green light having a peak wavelength area of 500 to 530 nm.
For the best interest of compact prosecution, Maslik is further cited to evidence that the green light used for a sleep treatment may have a wavelength range between 510 and 550 nm ([0086]: In green light, 550 nanometers is the most biological effective wavelength; and [0103]: green light, particularly wavelength of around 550 nanometers, can be most effective at suppressing melatonin secretion when the duration of exposure is less than 1.6 hours, and even 15 minutes can be enough…) – 550 nanometer reads on the range of 510 nm and 550 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the green light administration of Malchano employ such features associated with “having a characteristic wavelength only in a wavelength range between 510 nm and 550 nm with a bandwidth no larger than 20 nm full-width-half-maximum, and a luminance of no more than 100 cd/m2” as taught in Ogasawara for the advantage of “providing a sleep induction device which exhibits excellent hypnotic effects using light”, as suggested in Ogasawara, Abstract.
Claim 132. Malchano further teaches that
during administration of the green light, the subject is not exposed to light from a light source that does not produce the green light ([0152[: the light generation module 110 can instruct the visual signaling component 150 to generate visual signals comprising one or more light waves having one or more wavelength corresponding to one or more of…green (e.g., 495-570 nm)) – the one or more light waves having one or more wavelength includes one light wave corresponding to a green light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798