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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report by China's National Intellectual Property Administration filed on 04/11/2023 have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has grammatical errors. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term "SY7201ABC", which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-9, reference characters are present throughout; it is suggested to delete the reference characters recited in the claims as they do not carry patentable weight.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"music playback module" in claims 2 and 10; equivalent structure found in para. 0022. Therefore, a “music playback module” is best understood as an apparatus structurally equipped and configured to output sound, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first cover and the second cover facing the human eye” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the first and the second cover facing the human eye” will be read as “the first and the second cover adapted to face left and right eyes”.
The term “in order” in claim 1, line 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in order” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, because "in order" is a relative term it is unclear how the first and second cavities are structurally arranged within the treatment device. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if the first cavity is coupled to the second cavity, and the second cavity, which extends from the first cavity, is configured to be positioned on an eye.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a photo-biological training room” in line 6. Because of the claim language, it is grammatically unclear what the word, “room” is supposed to refer to. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as though the “photo-biological training room” is structurally imparted by the outer cavity that encases an eye; and the recited “room” will be interpreted as an encapsulating region where an eye is exposed to different colored lights created by an infrared emission module.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “black-black double-sided tape” in line 11. It is unclear how an entirely black double-sided tape is capable of allowing light to pass through and therefore illuminate a space. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as though the tape is not designed to block light but rather enable light to pass through.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the black-black double-sided tape is bonded to an inner side of the first cover (2) or the second cover (3)” in lines 11-12. It is unclear what the “inner side of the first cover or the second cover” is referencing, considering the double-sided tape is part of the infrared emission module, which is located within the inner cavity. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as though the “inner side of the first cover or the second cover” is directed towards a surface of the disclosed inner cavity.
The term “in order from bottom to top” in claim 1, lines 10-11, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in order from bottom to top” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, because "in order from bottom to top" is a relative term it is unclear how a reflective film, light guide plate, diffusive film, lower and upper brightness enhancement film, and a black-black double-sided tape are oriented within the infrared emission module. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if a reflective film is coupled to a light guide plate, a light guide plate is coupled to a reflective film and a diffusive film, a diffusive film is coupled to a light guide plate and a lower brightness enhancement film, a lower brightness enhancement film is coupled to a diffusive film and a upper brightness enhancement film, a upper brightness enhancement film is coupled to a lower brightness enhancement film and a black-black double-sided tape, and a black-black double-sided tape is coupled to a upper enhancement film.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “configured to emit 600-750 infrared light” in lines 14-15. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. Conventionally, a wavelength of 600-750 nm is defined as visible red light; not infrared light. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as though an LED point light source is configured to emit 600-750 nm of visible red light.
Claim 5 contains the trademark/trade name "SY7201ABC". Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a DC/DC step-up converter and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 5 further recites limitations “LX” in line 3, “U4” in lines 3, 6-7, 10, 12, and 14, “L1” in line 4, “LED” in lines 4-5, “C3” in lines 5 and 13, “GND” and “FB” in line 6, “R13” in lines 7 and 9, “R12” in line 8, “IN” in line 9, “C2” in lines 10-11, “OVP” in line 11, “R9” in line 12, “EN/PWM” in line 13, “R10” in line 14, and “VCC” in line 15. These limitations are indefinite. It appears as though these limitations are acronyms and/or reference characters; however, because they are not in parentheses, it is therefore unclear. It is also unclear what the acronyms define. For examination purposes, the claim will read as if the acronyms/reference characters are in parentheses.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “prism with an adjustable installation angle” in line 4. In light of the specification, it is unclear if the prism and brightness enhancement films are separate structures, or if the prisms are disposed on the brightness enhancement films. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as though the prism structures are disposed on the brightness enhancement films.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a uniformity of no less than 90%” in line 2. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what type of uniformity the claim is referring to. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as though the light guide plate has an optical uniformity of no less than 90%.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “allowing the human eyes to face the photo-biological training room” in line 7. It is unclear what “allowing” is imparting in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if a “photo-biological training” space is provided to an eye after a first preset duration.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite claims.
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 1-10 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 1 recites “the first cover (2) and the second cover (3) facing the human eye” in lines 3-4 and “a photo-biological training room in close contact with the human eye” in line 6; as a result, these limitations are directed human subject matter. “Configured to” language is suggested to overcome these rejections.
Claim 9 recites “stimulate cone and rod cells in retinas of the human eyes” in lines 5-6; as a result, this limitation is directed human subject matter. “Configured to” language is suggested to overcome these rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong (CN 211132071) in view of Lin (CN 207396915), citing to attached translations, further in view of Tedford et al. (US 2016/0067087).
Regarding claim 1, Tong teaches an intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes, comprising a device body (1) (Abstract),
wherein the device body (1) comprises a first cover (2) and a second cover (3) that are respectively adapted to left and right human eyes (page 5, para. 1, “the inner side of each eyeshade bracket 2 is provided with a soft eye socket ring 3 attached to the human eye”);
a side of each of the first cover (2) and the second cover (3) facing the human eye is provided with a first cavity (4) (Fig. 2, first through holes 1.1; page 4, para. 15, “first through holes 1.1, each first through hole of the eye frame 1 inner end are provided with an eye cover bracket 2”) and a second cavity (5) (Fig. 2, second through hole 2.1) in order;
the first cavity (4) is provided therein with an infrared emission module (6) (page 5, para. 1, “each first through hole 1.1 outer end of the eye frame 1 is provided with a light guide seat 4. each light guide seat 4…is provided with a plurality of light guide holes 4.2, each light guide hole 4.2 is provided with a luminous body 5); and
the second cavity (5) is provided therein with a photo-biological training room in close contact with the human eye (see Modified Figure 1); and
the device body (1) is provided therein with a controller; and the controller is electrically connected with the infrared LED point light source (67) (page 5, para. 7, “the luminous body 5 is fixed on the circuit board, and the luminous body 5 is an LED lamp”).
Tong fails to disclose wherein the infrared emission module (6) comprises a rubber-iron element (61); the rubber-iron element (61) comprises an assembly groove; the assembly groove is provided therein with a reflective film (62), a light guide plate (63), a diffusive film (64), a lower brightness enhancement film (65), an upper brightness enhancement film (66), and a black-black double-sided tape (68) in order from bottom to top; the black-black double-sided tape (68) is bonded to an inner side of the first cover (2) or the second cover (3); an infrared light-emitting diode (LED) point light source (67) is located at one side of the light guide plate (63) and between the reflective film and the diffusive film (64); and the infrared LED point light source (67) is configured to emit 600-750 nm infrared light.
Lin teaches an analogous light emission module wherein the infrared emission module (6) (Fig. 1) comprises a rubber-iron element (61) (page 3, para. 15, “a lower iron frame 1, an upper iron frame 2, a mold frame 3…mold frame 3 inner wall is provided with a protruding top part of the film 31 the rubber frame);
the rubber-iron element (61) comprises an assembly groove (Fig. 5; page 3, para. 15, “a film mounting slot 34; two sides of membrane installing groove 34 is provided with a fixing slot 35, a slot 35 is provided with a fixed round 36; top part of the fixing groove 35 provided with a film fixing groove 37”);
the assembly groove is provided therein with a reflective film (62) (Fig. 1, reflecting film 42), a light guide plate (63) (Fig. 1, light guide plate 43), a diffusive film (64) (Fig. 1, diffusion film 44), a lower brightness enhancement film (65) (Fig. 1, lower intensifying film 45), an upper brightness enhancement film (66) (Fig. 9, upper intensifying film 46), and a black-black double-sided tape (68) (page 2, para. 3, “the fixing card of the upper bright enhancement film is bonded is covered with a layer of double faced adhesive tape”) in order from bottom to top;
an infrared light-emitting diode (LED) point light source (67) is located at one side of the light guide plate (63) and between the reflective film and the diffusive film (64) (Fig. 1; page 3, para. 15, “light bar 41 is fixed on one side of mounting groove 33 of the light guide plate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device of Tong with the light emission module of Lin. Doing so would equip the treatment device with a compact light emission module, securely mounted within a rigid structure; consequently, diminishing the impact of vibrations. Further, this design may easily be connected to a circuit board for controlling mechanisms (Lin, Abstract; page 4, para. 6).
While the combination of Tong and Lin consequentially discloses the light emission module wherein the black-black double-sided tape (68) (Lin, page 2, para. 3, “double faced adhesive tape”) is bonded to an inner side of the first cover (2) (Tong, as depicted in Fig. 1, the luminous body 5 under each light guide base 4 is coupled to the first through holes 1.1) or the second cover (3).
Tong and Lin fail to specifically disclose wherein the infrared LED point light source (67) is configured to emit 600-750 nm infrared light.
Tedford et al. teaches an analogous LED light source wherein the infrared LED point light source (67) is configured to emit 600-750 nm infrared light (paragraphs 0039 and 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device of Tong, in view of Lin, with the LED point light source configured to emit 600-750 nm of light of Tedford et al. Incorporating an engineered LED light source capable of emitting 600-750 nm of light may help restore mitochondrial membrane potential and cellular function in damage or diseased tissues (Tedford et al., paragraphs 0039 and 0043).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1
Claim(s) 2 and 9-10 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo (US 20200289321).
Regarding claim 2, Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., teaches the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes according to claim 1 as stated above. Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., fails to teach wherein the device body (1) is further provided therein with a music playback module; and the music playback module is electrically connected with the controller.
Luo teaches an analogous photo-biological treatment device wherein the device body (1) is further provided therein with a music playback module; and the music playback module is electrically connected with the controller (Fig. 6, sound system 618; paragraphs 0096, 0127, and 0134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., with the music playback module of Luo. Implementing different sub-systems, such as a sound playback module, enables the user to target different senses synchronously via photobiological programs and auditory treatments. This combination of stimuli may be useful for meditation purposes (Luo, Abstract; para. 0094).
Regarding claim 9, Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Luo teaches an eye training method (Tong, page 3, para. 10, “after using the above structure”) using the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes (Tong, Fig. 1) according to 2 as stated above, comprising:
Tong further teaches wearing and positioning the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes in front of human eyes (Fig. 1; page 3, para. 8, “after wearing to the human eye, one end of the eye ring is adhered and sealed with the human eye”); and
controlling, by the controller, the light emission module (6) to emit light perpendicular to the human eyes (Fig. 2, where the light pass through the first through hole 1.1, the second through hole 2.1, and the third through hole 3.1. and enters directing into an eye; page 5, para. 7, “the top part of the light guide hole 4.2 is a reflecting surface 4.5, the emitting light of the luminous body 5 is reflected by the reflecting surface 4.5 and irradiated to the human eye; the luminous body 5 is fixed on the circuit board”).
Tong fails to specifically disclose wherein the infrared emission module emits 600-750 nm infrared light, controlling the infrared light to stimulate cone and rod cells in retinas of the human eyes for a first preset duration; and allowing the human eyes to face the photo-biological training room for an eye muscle relaxation training, and providing a voice prompt when a second preset duration is reached.
Tedford et al. teaches an analogous LED light source wherein the infrared emission module emits 600-750 nm infrared light (paragraphs 0039 and 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified an eye training method using the intelligent photo-biological treatment device of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Luo, with the infrared emission module emitting 600-750 nm of light of Tedford et al. Incorporating an light source capable of emitting 600-750 nm of light may help restore mitochondrial membrane potential and cellular function in damage or diseased tissues (Tedford et al., paragraphs 0039 and 0043).
While the modified combination of Tong and Tedford et al. teach the infrared emission module, Tong and Tedford et al. fail to specifically disclose controlling the infrared light to stimulate cone and rod cells in retinas of the human eyes for a first preset duration; and allowing the human eyes to face the photo-biological training room for an eye muscle relaxation training, and providing a voice prompt when a second preset duration is reached.
Luo teaches an analogous photo-biological treatment device further comprising controlling the infrared light to stimulate cone and rod cells in retinas of the human eyes for a first preset duration (paragraphs 0111, 0107-0118; para. 0123); and
allowing the human eyes to face the photo-biological training room for an eye muscle relaxation training (para. 0063, “the light flash program will be paused temporarily if nocturnal awakenings were detected”; Fig. 4B, the period P; paragraphs 0108 and 0110), and providing a voice prompt (para. 0134, where the speaker 622 may be used for conveying information provided by application 502“) when a second preset duration is reached (paragraphs 0107-0118; Figs. 4A-4E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified an eye training method using the intelligent photo-biological treatment device of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Luo, with the first preset duration providing a visual stimulus and the second preset duration providing no stimulus of Luo. By turning the flashes of light on for a period then turning the flashes off for another period, the likelihood of the user’s eyes becoming uncomfortable and irritated by the light application may be avoided (Luo, paragraphs 0112 and 0016).
Regarding claim 10, a modified Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Luo teaches the eye training method according to claim 9 as stated above.
Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., fails to specifically disclose controlling, by the controller, the music playback module to play music for a brain nerve stimulation training.
Lou further teaches controlling, by the controller, the music playback module to play music for a brain nerve stimulation training (paragraphs 0096, 0127 and 0134; Fig. 6, speaker 622).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified an eye training method using the intelligent photo-biological treatment device of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Luo, with the music playback module of Lou. Implementing different sub-systems, such as a sound playback module, enables the user to target different senses synchronously via photobiological programs and auditory treatments. This combination of stimuli may be useful for meditation purposes (Luo, Abstract; para. 0094).
Claim(s) 4 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asako (JP 2011146238), citing to attached translation.
Regarding claim 4, Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., teaches the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes according to claim 1 as stated above. Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., fails to teach wherein the light guide plate (63) is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) by laser engraving.
Asako teaches an analogous light emitting device wherein the light guide plate is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) by laser engraving (page 2, para. 5, “A light guide plate 117 made of a transparent base material such as methacrylate (PMMA) or acrylic”; page 3, para. 4, “As a method for producing these light guide plates, laser cutting or injection molding has been generally employed in order to accurately form a desired shape”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., with the light guide plate of Asako. Implementing a light guide plate made of PMMA by laser engraving provides an accurately shaped light emitting surface with a transparent base material (Asako, page 2, para. 5, “A light guide plate 117 made of a transparent base material such as methacrylate (PMMA)”; page 3, para. 4, “laser cutting or injection molding has been generally employed in order to accurately form a desired shape”).
Claim(s) 6 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (WO 2018201618) and Jin et al. (CN 106773237), citing to attached translations.
Regarding claim 6, Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., teaches the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes according to claim 1 as stated above. Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., fails to teach wherein the infrared LED point light source (67) has an emission angle of no less than 120°; and the lower brightness enhancement film (65) and the upper brightness enhancement film (66) each are provided with a prism with an adjustable installation angle.
Chang et al. teaches an analogous light emitting device wherein the infrared LED point light source (67) has an emission angle of no less than 120° (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., with the specified emission angle of Chang et al. Doing so achieves a wide viewing angle effect (Chang et al., page 7, para. 1, “The light-emitting angle of the backlight module is greater than 120 degrees, thereby enabling the display device having the backlight module to achieve a wide viewing angle effect”).
While the combination of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Chang et al. teaches the emission angle of no less than 120°; Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Chang et al. fails to teach wherein the brightness enhancement film (65) and the upper brightness enhancement film (66) each are provided with a prism with an adjustable installation angle.
Jin et al. teaches an analogous limit emitting source wherein the brightness enhancement film (65) and the upper brightness enhancement film (66) each are provided with a prism with an adjustable installation angle (page 2, para. 9, “said brightness enhancement film comprises a substrate and a prism structure layer (abbreviated as prism layer)”; page 3, para. 15, “in the brightness enhancement film, prism peak of the prism ray angle is 50-130 degrees; the prism peak of the prism ring angle is 50-130 degrees”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., further in view of Chang et al., with the brightness enhancement films provided with prisms of Jin et al. Modifying the brightness enhancement films to incorporate prism arrangements may assist in directing light beams, while avoiding a light interference phenomenon (Jin et al., page 5, para. 2, “with better uniform light effect. At the same time, this special structure, which avoids the light interference phenomenon of the traditional parallel prism structure, reduces the moiré effect and Newton ring phenomenon).
Claim(s) 7 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (KR 20150056025), citing to attached translation.
Regarding claim 7, Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., teaches the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes according to claim 1 as stated above. Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., fails to teach wherein the infrared emission module (6) has a total thickness of no more than 0.95 mm.
Jung et al. teaches an analogous light emission module wherein the infrared emission module (6) has a total thickness of no more than 0.95 mm (page 11, para. 8, “the thickness of the light emitting device 110 may be designed to be 50 μm to 400 μm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., with the light emission module with a total thickness of no more than 0.95 mm of Jung et al. An infrared emission module with a relatively small thickness creates a slim structure adapt to conform/fit into a preexisting light-producing arrangement (Jung et al., Abstract; page 10, para. 9, “The light guide plate 160 and the light emitting device 110 have a thickness of 400 mu m or less. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the light emitting device 110 has a structure capable of being thinned’).
Claim(s) 8 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 203010505), citing to attached translation.
Regarding claim 8, Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., teaches the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes according to claim 1 as stated above. Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., fails to teach wherein the light guide plate (63) has a uniformity of no less than 90%.
Yang et al. teaches an analogous light emitting device wherein the light guide plate (63) has a uniformity of no less than 90% (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the intelligent photo-biological treatment device for eyes of Tong, in view of Lin and Tedford et al., with the light guide plate with a uniformity no less than 90% of Yang et al. Incorporating a light guide plate with a uniformity of 90% minimizes light loss, improves light transmittance, and creates a more evenly distributed light emitting surface (Yang et al., paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0010-0011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 122 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manabu et al. (JP 2006270073) discloses a light-emitting diode with a substrate layer, Bragg optical reflection layer, lower and upper cladding layer, active layer, and current diffusion layer; however, Manabu et al. fails to specifically disclose a substrate layer comprising a silicon dioxide protection layer and an indium tin enhancement layer. Shealy et al. (US 20060106276) discloses a LED circuit with pins, resistors, a processor, and a power supply; however, fails to discloses capacitors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791