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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-5 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 vibration unit being mounted on any one side or each of left and right eye sides of a frame unit”. It is unclear how many vibration units are being required since one vibration unit cannot be on both left and right eye sides simultaneously. Claim 4 recites “a recessed unit that protrudes toward a direction of an eyeball”. This is unclear since the term “recessed” usually means indented whereas the claim recites that it “protrudes”. Furthermore, details are not shown in the drawings so it is not clear what is meant or required by the claim limitation. The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependencies. 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. Claim 4 is 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 4 recites “a recessed unit that protrudes toward a direction of an eyeball” which recites the human body. It is suggested applicant use –configured to—or similar language to obviate the rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP 07-012138 U and English translation provided by Applicant). Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a vibration unit (201, 202) available for eyesight recovery glasses, the vibration unit being mounted on any one side or each of left and right eye sides (101, 102) of a frame unit of the eyesight recovery glasses (Figures 2 and 4), wherein the vibration unit is provided such that the vibration unit generates ultrasonic waves through vibration (Abstract; [0008], [00010]) . Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses wherein the vibration unit has a center thereof provided with a recessed unit (see inner side of body part 201 that accommodates ultrasonic drum 211; [0010]; Figure 3) that protrudes toward a direction of an eyeball (see 201, 202 where the inner area that accommodates the ultrasonic drum 211 protrudes from the left outer side in Figure 2 toward 211a that abuts the eye of the wearer [0010]; Figures 2-4) . 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 07-012138 U and English translation provided by Applicant) in view of Yoshito (JP2000066151 and abstract provided by Applicant) . Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses that as applied above but does not disclose wherein, when the vibration unit is mounted on any one side of the left and right eye sides of the frame unit, the vibration unit is coupled to a hinge unit mounted on the frame unit such that the vibration unit is capable of being rotated toward and seated on a left eye part or a right eye part of the frame unit through the hinge unit. Yoshito teaches spectacles wherein lens (110) is mounted on any one side of the left and right eye sides of the frame unit (Figure 1) , the lens is coupled to a hinge unit (124) mounted on the frame unit such that the lens unit is capable of being rotated toward and seated on a left eye part or a right eye part of the frame unit through the hinge unit (Figure 1; abstract) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the vibration unit of Tanaka on one lens such that it is capable of being rotated through a hinge unit as taught by Yoshito for providing treatment to one eye at a time and as such would require fewer transducers thus reducing the cost of the device . Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 07-012138 U and English translation provided by Applicant) in view of Song (KR 20200066579A and machine translation). Regarding claim 3 , Tanaka discloses that as applied above and discloses the vibration unit for generating vibration on a surface comprises an ultrasonic vibration unit (211) but does not disclose the ultrasonic unit comprises a piezoelectric element or a piezoelectric film . Song teaches ophthalmic ultrasonic treatment device for providing ultrasonic waves wherein the ultrasonic unit (30) comprises piezoelectric elements for providing more focused ultrasound energy to the eye (see page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Tanaka where the ultrasonic vibration unit is a piezoelectric element as taught by Song for providing more focused ultrasound energy to the eye. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 07-012138 U and English translation provided by Applicant) in view of Kyun (KR20110134716 and abstract provided by applicant) . Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses that as applied above including a sensor (40) mounted on the vibration unit and wherein the vibration unit is configured for contact with the eyeball ([0008], [0010]) but does not disclose the sensor is a capacitive sensor or a pressure sensor for detecting contact. Kyun teaches glasses having capacitive proximity sensors (40) for realizing on/off by sensing whether or not glasses are wo rn (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Tanaka having a capacitive or pressure sensor as taught by Kyun for increasing the lifetime of the product ( Kyun , Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kari Rodriquez whose telephone number is 571-270-1909 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 6-3 EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alireza Nia can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3076 . 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. /KARI K RODRIQUEZ/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786