DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations of “which decreases the visibility of said at least one visual space” and “which reproduces at least one sound piece in at least one ear” should be “wherein the at least one blocking element is configured to decrease…” and “wherein the at least one audio device is configured to reproduce….”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “visual space in the range comprised between 10 to 95%” should read “visual space in the range of between 10% to 95%”
Regarding claim 15, “it is it is” appears to be redundant. It is suggested to state “the system of claim 1” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 13 states “when it is used by a user, he can do an exercise of raising and lowering his view”. However, this appears to be actively claiming the user which could be human.
Claim 14 is rejected similarly due to its dependency from claim 13.
Claim 15 appears to be actively claiming the user similar to claim 13. This is seen as claiming a human.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Some of the claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. There may be additional 112(b) issues similar to the ones found below and should be addressed similarly.
Regarding claim 1, “the at least one glass frame” lacks antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to “at least one frame” previously claimed or is a new frame. For examination purposes, “the at least one glass frame” is seen as “at least one frame”.
Further, claim 1 states “the right and left sides”, “the front right and left sides” which the claim has insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation. It appears this should read “right and left sides” and “a front right side and left side”. Further, it is unclear if “the front right and left sides” and “the right and left sides” refer to the same or different sides. For examination purposes, they are seen as the same sides
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 uses the language of "the right visual spaces”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this is seen as “right visual spaces”.
Regarding claim 3, states “the left ear”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this is seen as “a left ear”.
Regarding claim 4, states “the left visual spaces”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this is seen as “left visual spaces”.
Regarding claim 5, states “the right ear”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this is seen as “a right ear”.
Regarding claim 6, states “wherein it further…”. However, “it” is not proper claim language as the term is unclear on what “it” is referring to. Instead for examination purposes, the language should state simply what is being referred to such as “the system of claim 1” or similar.
Regarding claim 7, states “wherein the at least one blocking element is disposed over the at least two lens in the at least one visual space of the at least one of the at least two lens spaces.” It is unclear how only one blocking element could be disposed over two lenses in one visual space. For examination purposes, this is taken as “over one of the at least two lens”.
Regarding claims 8 and 14-15, the claims use the language “preferably” and “more preferably” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes the examiner takes the broadest ranges as part of the claimed invention and claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, states “when it is used by a user, he can do an exercise of raising and lowering his view”. The use of “it” and “he” and “his” are seen as indefinite as it is unclear what these terms are referring back to similar to lack of antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear how the user is being claimed as a system cannot include the user, but the system can have the capability of being used by said user.
Regarding claim 14, “can be done” is seen as indefinite, as it is unclear if this is actually actively being claimed or a capability of the device. Further claim 14 is rejected similarly to claim 13 above due to its dependency.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a use claim; however, similarly to a method claim there does not appear to be any steps of use/method steps actively being claimed. It is unclear if “which carry on…” is referring to the user, the use of the device or the device itself. Clarity is needed. For examination purposes, this is simply taken as the method of using the device with the step of raising and lowering an extremity.
Regarding claims 9-12 and claims 2-15, are rejected similarly for the indefinite language found in their independents.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy, US 5,424,786, herein referred to as “McCarthy”, in view of Hanbury, US 20220265959, herein referred to as “Hanbury”.
Regarding claim 1, McCarthy discloses: A system for treating personality and mood disorders (Fig. 3-4), comprising: at least one frame (Fig. 3-4; specifically element 36 and 52), comprising: at least two arms connected at the right and left sides of the at least one glass frame (Arms coming off both sets of classes on the left and right in Fig. 3-4); at least two lens spaces disposed at the front right and left sides of the at least one frame, wherein at least one of the at least two lens spaces is divided into at least two visual spaces right and left (Fig. 3-4; lenses 40 and 38 with visual portions 42 and 46 and lenses 54 and 56 with visual portions 58 and 60); at least one blocking element disposed on at least one visual space of the at least one of the at least two lens spaces, which decreases the visibility of said at least one visual space (Fig. 3-4; opaque portions 44, 48, 62, and 64).
McCarthy does not explicitly disclose: at least one audio device, which reproduces at least one sound piece in at least one ear, corresponding to the opposite side in which is placed the at least one blocking element.
However, Hanbury discloses: at least one audio device, which reproduces at least one sound piece in at least one ear, corresponding to the opposite side in which is placed the at least one blocking element ([0038] and fig. 3a; specifically the earbuds that are on either side of the ears which is on the opposite side from each visual input).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the glasses as taught by McCarthy to include the audio portion of Hanbury. The motivation being to supply treatment for different disorders as seen in Hanbury, Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, McCarthy discloses: wherein the at least one blocking element is disposed on the right visual spaces of the at least two lens spaces (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Hanbury further discloses: wherein the at least one audio device reproduces the at least one sound piece in the left ear (Fig. 3a; audio in both ears).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the glasses as taught by McCarthy to include the audio portion of Hanbury. The motivation being to supply treatment for different disorders as seen in Hanbury, Abstract.
Regarding claim 4, McCarthy discloses: wherein the at least one blocking element is disposed on the left visual spaces of the at least two lens spaces (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Hanbury further discloses: wherein the at least one audio device reproduces the at least one sound piece in the right ear (Fig. 3a; specifically audio in both ears).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the glasses as taught by McCarthy to include the audio portion of Hanbury. The motivation being to supply treatment for different disorders as seen in Hanbury, Abstract.
Regarding claim 6, McCarthy discloses: wherein it further comprises at least two lens disposed on the at least two lens spaces (Fig. 3-4; lenses 38, 40, 54, and 56).
Regarding claim 7, McCarthy discloses: wherein the at least one blocking element is disposed over the at least two lens in the at least one visual space of the at least one of the at least two lens spaces (Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, McCarthy discloses: wherein the at least one blocking element blocks the visibility on the at least one visual space in the range comprised between 10 to 95%, preferably between 50 to 60% (Figs. 3-4 appear to cover around 50% which would be 10-95%).
Regarding claim 9, McCarthy discloses: wherein the at least one blocking element is made of cardboard, laminating sheet, plastic, glass, metal, or from a combination of them (Column 6, lines 6-20; specifically tinted lenses which can be tinted lenses as masks which are seen as plastic or glass or a combination of them).
Regarding claim 10, McCarthy discloses: wherein the at least one blocking element is formed from at least one smooth sheet without holes (Fig. 3-4; specifically there are no holes in those portions).
Regarding claim 13, McCarthy discloses: wherein when it is used by a user, he can do an exercise of raising and lowering his view (Fig. 2; and specifically one would be capable of raising and lowering a view simply by wearing and reading).
Regarding claim 14, McCarthy discloses: wherein the exercise of raising and lowering the view of the user can be done at intervals of around 6 seconds, preferably of around 4 seconds, and more preferably of around 2 seconds (Fig. 2; specifically that reading can take more than an interval of seconds and therefore is seen as teaching the use).
Regarding claim 15, McCarthy discloses: wherein it is it is used by a user, which carry on an exercise of raising and lowering his view at intervals of around 6 seconds, preferably of around 4 seconds, and more preferably of around 2 seconds (Fig. 2; specifically that reading can take more than an interval of seconds and therefore is seen as teaching the use).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNE M RODDEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM MST.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOANNE M RODDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794