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 .
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 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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Dreamers (WO 2021/096840 A1, of record) in view of Lululemon (WO 2020/237352 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Dreamers discloses a wearable device (¶49, “the present disclosure relates to wearable devices (such as glasses, goggles and any other eyewear)”), comprising:
one or more windows positioned to allow light from a light source to propagate toward a position of a wearer's eyes (¶49, functional light-transmitting materials (such as windows); ¶51, reducing the amount of melatonin-inhibiting light transmitted to an eye of a subject. the filter transmits at least 50% of light with a wavelength above about 570 nm); and
a spectral filter that comprises a coating positioned on one or more sections of the one or more windows (¶50, the optical filter, which may be a coating on a lens),
wherein the spectral filter includes a multi-layer stack of dielectric material with alternate high and low indices of refraction such that a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction, and a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction (Fig. 1; ¶64, alternating layers of a first material having a first index of refraction and a second material having a second index of refraction, wherein the first index of refraction is higher than the second index of refraction; ¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films),
wherein a number of the layers and a thickness of each layer are selected to provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics (¶37, a 20 layer stack of alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films of approximately 100 nm thickness each on a CR-39 lens),
wherein the designed transmission and blocking characteristics include a contiguous transmission region (¶56, transmits about 80% of light with a wavelength above about 505 nm.), and a contiguous blocking region, a first one of the contiguous blocking regions extending below 455 nm (¶56, herein the filter reflects about 80% of light with a wavelength below about 495 nm), and
wherein the spectral filter is configured to block 80-100% of the spectral content in each of the contiguous blocking regions (¶56, wherein the filter reflects about 80% of light with a wavelength below about 495 nm), and transmit 98%-100% of the spectral content in the contiguous transmission region (¶56, transmits about 80% of light with a wavelength above about 505 nm).
Dreamers does not explicitly show a contiguous transmission region within 455-560 nm band of wavelengths with a tolerance to within at least +/-5 nm, or provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics to allow circadian-active spectra to reach the wearer's eyes while blocking spectral content other than the circadian-active spectra, a second one of the contiguous blocking regions extending above 560 nm.
Lululemon, drawn to an analogous wearable device, discloses provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics to allow circadian-active spectra to reach the wearer's eyes, while blocking spectral content other than the circadian-active spectra, a second one of the contiguous blocking regions extending above 560 nm (¶24-25, These non-image forming effects of light include the regulation of circadian rhythms. enhance their exposure to blue wavelengths of light for desired times of alertness; ¶32, the optical device may include at least one third filter that blocks approximately 100% of light in the 280 nm to 400 nm spectral range. In combination with the at least one second filter blocking about 15% to about 60% of light in the 500 nm to 700 nm range (similar to sunglasses) but allowing blue wavelengths of light between 400 nm and 500 nm to pass through the lenses).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the transmission and blocking characteristics disclosed by Lululemon to the filter disclosed by Dreamers to enhance the well being of a wearer (Lululemon, ¶24).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions of the claim have been detailed above by the modified Dreamers. Benefit of optimizing the claimed ranges include enhancing the well being of the wearer, minimizing circadian rhythm disruption, promoting wakefulness, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a contiguous transmission region within 455-560 nm band of wavelengths with a tolerance to within at least +/-5 nm, thus enhancing the well being of the wearer (Lululemon, ¶24).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Dreamers disclose the wearable device of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the contiguous transmission region extends from 455 nm to 495 nm, the first contiguous blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 495 nm to at least 700 nm, all with a +/-2 nm tolerance.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions of the claim have been detailed above by the modified Dreamers. Benefit of optimizing the claimed ranges include enhancing the well being of the wearer.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the contiguous transmission region extends from 455 nm to 495 nm, the first contiguous blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 495 nm to at least 700 nm, all with a +/-2 nm tolerance thus enhancing well being of the wearer.
Regarding claim 3, Dreamers in view of Lululemon disclose the wearable device of claim 2, Dreamers explicitly shows wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2), and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films).
Although Dreamers does not specifically disclose TiO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 85 layers, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have TIO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 85 layers, based on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is obvious to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, e.g. for the purpose of enhancing well being of the wearer (Dreamers, ¶25, the Bragg grating comprises at least 30 layers; ¶92, alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films (It is noted TIO2 with a refraction index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 with a refraction index from 1.4 to 1.55)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Dreamers disclose the wearable device of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the transmission region extends from 455 nm to 560 nm, the first blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 750 nm, all with a +/- 2 nm tolerance.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the transmission region extends from 455 nm to 560 nm, the first blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 750 nm, all with a +/- 2 nm tolerance, based on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is obvious to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, e.g. for the purpose of enhancing well being of the wearer (See Lululemon, ¶32, the optical device may include at least one third filter that blocks approximately 100% of light in the 280 nm to 400 nm spectral range. In combination with the at least one second filter blocking about 15% to about 60% of light in the 500 nm to 700 nm range (similar to sunglasses) but allowing blue wavelengths of light between 400 nm and 500 nm to pass through the lenses).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 4, Dreamers explicitly shows wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2), and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films).
Although Dreamers does not specifically disclose TiO2 has a 2.35 Index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 75 layers, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have TiO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 75 layers, based on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is obvious to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, e.g. for the purpose of enhancing well being of the wearer (See Dreamers, ¶25, the Bragg grating comprises at least 30 layers; ¶92, alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films (It is noted TiO2 with a refraction index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 with a refraction index from 1.4 to 1.55)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the one or more windows includes two lenses, and the spectral filter is formed as the coating on each of the lenses (Fig. 11; ¶50, the optical filter, which may be a coating on a lens; ¶[0105, the lens 203 may include two discrete lenses, one lens for each eye).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the wearable device is a pair of goggles, the one or more windows form a unitary window, and the spectral filter Is formed as the coating on the unitary window (Fig. 12 shows unitary window; ¶49, to wearable devices (such as glasses, goggles; ¶50, the optical filter, which may be a coating on a lens; ¶[0105, the eyewear 200 includes a frame 202 having one or more lenses 203 the lens 203 may be a single integral lens that spans the width of both eyes).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the wearable device is a pair of goggles, the one or more windows form a unitary window, and the spectral filter is formed as the coating on the two or more sections of the unitary window (Fig. 12 shows unitary window; (It is noted the edges and the middle parts can be considered as two or more sections); ¶49, to wearable devices (such as glasses, goggles); ¶50, the optical filter, which may be a coating on a lens; ¶105, the eyewear 200 includes a frame 202 having one or more lenses 203 the lens 203 may be a single integral lens that spans the width of both eyes).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 8, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the two or more sections of the unitary window are positioned to allow light propagating at substantially normal angles to pass through the spectral filter and reach the position of the wearer's eyes (Fig. 1 and Fig. 12 shows middle parts positioned to allow light propagating at substantially normal angles to pass through the spectral filter and reach the position of the wearer's eyes; ¶51, optical filters for reducing the amount of melatonin-inhibiting light transmitted to an eye of a subject. the filter transmits at least 50% of light with a wavelength above about 570 nm).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 8, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the two or more sections of the unitary window are positioned to allow light propagating at one or more inclined angles to pass through the spectral filter and reach the position of the wearer's eyes (Fig. 1 and Fig. 12 shows the edges are positioned to allow light propagating at one or more inclined angles to pass through the spectral filter and reach the position of the wearer's eyes; ¶51, optical filters for reducing the amount of melatonin-inhibiting light transmitted to an eye of a subject. the filter transmits at least 50% of light with a wavelength above about 570 nm).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the one or more windows are made of glass or plastic (¶129, the Bragg Grating on Plastic).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the light source is one of: an atmospheric light source, a light emitting diode (LED), a halogen lamp, or a fluorescent lamp (Abstract, blue light from a light emitting diode).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Dreamers discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Dreamers further discloses including an anti- reflection coating positioned on one side of the one or more windows (¶85, the optical filter coating is used in conjunction with an anti-reflective coating and/or a tinted lens).
Regarding claim 15, Dreamers discloses a spectral filter for use in an eyewear for restoring circadian rhythm (¶49, the present disclosure relates to wearable devices (such as glasses, goggles and any other eyewear). These wavelengths of light may inhibit sleep by several mechanisms, including but not limited to modification of circadian rhythm), comprising:
a multi-layer stack coating on a substrate (¶17, depositing the particles of the first material and the particles of the second material onto a substrate thereby forming the optical filter; ¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SIO2 and TiO2 thin films), the multi-layer stack including a plurality of layers of dielectric material with alternate high and low indices of refraction such that a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction, and a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction (Fig. 1; ¶64, alternating layers of a first material having a first index of refraction and a second material having a second index of refraction, wherein the first index of refraction is higher than the second index of refraction; ¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SIO2 and TiO2 thin films),
wherein a number of the layers and a thickness of each layer are selected to provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics (¶37, a 20 layer stack of alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films of approximately 100 nm thickness each on a CR-39 lens),
wherein the designed transmission and blocking characteristics include a contiguous transmission region (¶56, transmits about 80% of light with a wavelength above about 505 nm), and a contiguous blocking region, a first one of the contiguous blocking regions extending below 455 nm (¶56, herein the filter reflects about 80% of light with a wavelength below about 495 nm), and
wherein each of the contiguous blocking regions blocks 80-100% of the spectral content in the corresponding blocking region (¶56, wherein the filter reflects about 80% of light with a wavelength below about 495 nm), and wherein the contiguous transmission region transmits 98-100% of the spectral content in the transmission region (¶56, transmits about 80% of light with a wavelength above about 505 nm).
Dreamers does not explicitly show a contiguous transmission region within 455-560 nm band of wavelengths with a tolerance to within at least +/-5 nm, or provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics to allow circadian-active spectra to reach the wearer's eyes while blocking spectral content other than the circadian-active spectra, a second one of the contiguous blocking regions extending above 560 nm.
However, Lululemon, drawn to an analogous wearable device, discloses provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics to allow circadian-active spectra to reach the wearer's eyes, a second one of the contiguous blocking regions extending above 560 nm (¶24-25, “These non-image forming effects of light include the regulation of circadian rhythms ... enhance their exposure to blue wavelengths of light for desired times of alertness”; ¶32, the optical device may include at least one third filter that blocks approximately 100% of light in the 280 nm to 400 nm spectral range. In combination with the at least one second filter blocking about 15% to about 60% of light in the 500 nm to 700 nm range (similar to sunglasses) but allowing blue wavelengths of light between 400 nm and 500 nm to pass through the lenses).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the transmission and blocking characteristics disclosed by Lululemon to the filter disclosed by Dreamers to enhance the well being of a wearer (Lululemon, ¶24).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions of the claim have been detailed above by the modified Dreamers. Benefit of optimizing the claimed ranges include enhancing the well being of the wearer, minimizing circadian rhythm disruption, promoting wakefulness etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a contiguous transmission region within 455-560 nm band of wavelengths with a tolerance to within at least +/-5 nm, thus enhancing the well being of the wearer (Lululemon, ¶24).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Dreamers discloses the spectral filter of claim 15, and Dreamers further discloses wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2), and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films).
The modified Dreamers does not explicitly show wherein the contiguous transmission region extends from 455 nm to 495 nm, the first contiguous blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 495 nm to at least 700 nm, all with a +/-2 nm tolerance, or TiO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 85 layers.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions of the claim have been detailed above by the modified Dreamers. Benefit of optimizing the claimed ranges include enhancing the well being of the wearer.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the contiguous transmission region extends from 455 nm to 495 nm, the first contiguous blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second contiguous blocking region extends from 495 nm to at least 700 nm, all with a +/-2 nm tolerance thus enhancing well being of the wearer (See Lululemon, ¶24, ¶32, the optical device may include at least one third filter that blocks approximately 100% of light in the 280 nm to 400 nm spectral range. In combination with the at least one second filter blocking about 15% to about 60% of light in the 500 nm to 700 nm range (similar to sunglasses) but allowing blue wavelengths of light between 400 nm and 500 nm to pass through the lenses).
Similarly, although Dreamers does not specifically disclose TiO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 85 layers, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have TIO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 85 layers, thus achieving the circadian rhythm restoration effect by optimizing the filtering by routine experimentation (See Dreamers, ¶25, the Bragg grating comprises at least 30 layers; ¶92, alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films (It is noted TiO2 with a refraction index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 with a refraction index from 1.4 to 1.55)).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Dreamers discloses the spectral filter of claim 15, and Dreamers further discloses wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2), and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films).
The modified Dreamers does not explicitly show wherein the transmission region extends from 455 nm to 560 nm, the first blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 750 nm, all with a +/- 2 nm tolerance, or TIO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 75 layers.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions of the claim have been detailed above by the modified Dreamers. Benefit of optimizing the claimed ranges include enhancing the well being of the wearer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Invention to have the transmission region extends from 455 nm to 560 nm, the first blocking region extends from 455 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm, and the second blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 750 nm, all with a +/- 2 nm tolerance, thus enhancing well being of the wearer (see Lululemon, ¶24, ¶32, the optical device may include at least one third filter that blocks approximately 100% of light in the 280 nm to 400 nm spectral range. In combination with the at least one second filter blocking about 15% to about 60% of light in the 500 nm to 700 nm range (similar to sunglasses) but allowing blue wavelengths of light between 400 nm and 500 nm to pass through the lenses). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have TiO2 has a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 has a 1.45 index of refraction and the multi-layer stack includes 75 layers, thus achieving the circadian rhythm restoration effect by optimizing the filtering by routine experimentation (See Dreamers, ¶25, the Bragg grating comprises at least 30 layers; ¶92, alternating SiO2 and TiO2 thin films (It is noted TiO2 with a refraction index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 with a refraction index from 1.4 to 1.55)).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Dreamers discloses the spectral filter of claim 15, and Dreamers further discloses configured to receive input illumination from one or more light sources including an atmospheric light source, a light emitting diode (LED), a halogen lamp, or a fluorescent lamp (Abstract, blue light from a light emitting diode).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Dreamers discloses the spectral filter of claim 15, and Dreamers further discloses wherein the spectral filter does not include a dye-based or a pigment-based material (¶92, a 20 layer stack of alternating SIO2 and TiO2 thin films).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreamers in view of Lululemon and further in view of 3M (US 20170363884 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 12, Dreamers in view of Lululemon disclose the wearable device of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the spectral filter is removably attached to the one or more windows.
However, 3M, drawn to an analogous wearable device, discloses the filter (1) is removably attached to the one or more windows (102) (¶68, pane 102 may comprise at least one layer of transparent glass; ¶69, filter lens 1 may be removably adhesively attached to pane 102).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine removably attachment disclosed by 3M to the filter and window disclosed by Dreamers to facilitate the recycling or disposing of the filter (See 3M, ¶70, filter lens 1 may be removably adhesively attached to pane 102 (e.g., by suitable choice of pressure-sensitive adhesive) so that a filter lens 1 may be e.g. removed and recycled/disposed, when desired).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-19 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-21 of Application No. 18292292. The differences therebetween are disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art detailed above and/or considered pertinent, with the general conditions of a filtering wearable having been met, variation in the wavelength bands amounting to design choice of chosen colors. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1-19 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims of Application No. 18292236. The differences therebetween are disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art detailed above and/or considered pertinent, with the general conditions of a filtering wearable having been met, variation in the wavelength bands amounting to design choice of chosen colors. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1-19 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-24 of Application No. 18292268. The differences therebetween are disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art detailed above and/or considered pertinent, with the general conditions of a filtering wearable having been met, variation in the wavelength bands amounting to design choice of chosen colors. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1-19 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Application No. 18292183. The differences therebetween are disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art detailed above and/or considered pertinent, with the general conditions of a filtering wearable having been met, variation in the wavelength bands amounting to design choice of chosen colors. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lewis (US 10962789 B1) generally discloses filtering spectacles, eyewear, etc. with respect to specific circadian rhythm effective molecules and photoreceptors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872