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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/05/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Application No. 19/213,936 and U.S. Patent No. 12,332,504 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 and 4-27 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 that “each of the light emitting diodes emits light in a shape of an emission cone and wherein the emission cones are arranged angled relative to one another and relative to the front frame, and each emission cone has a defined opening angle, such that the emission cones intersect and form an elliptically shaped intersection area extending along a line of sight, wherein the elliptically shaped intersection area covers a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm between a back surface of one of the respective glasses and an apex of the user’s cornea to illuminate the line of sight of the user.” However, it is unclear how an intersection area of emission cones can cover "a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm between the back surface of one of the respective glasses and the apex of the user's cornea." It is unclear if the intersection of the cones must have a dimension that is between 5 mm and 35 mm or if the cones must intersect at some point that is between 5 mm and 35 mm between the two elements. That is, it is unclear if the intersection should be a 30 mm long intersection that covers an entire distance of 5 mm to 35 mm between the surfaces or if the intersection should be any elliptical intersection formed in a region within the range between 5 mm and 35 mm between the surfaces.” Additionally, it is unclear if the “length range” is referring to a length of the elliptical intersection area or the length between the back surface and the cornea. Further, if a user’s cornea is less than 35 mm from a back surface of the glasses, it is unclear how such an intersection area can be formed. For the purposes of examination, any light emitting diodes that emit light which intersects at some point between the back surface of the glasses and a user's cornea will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 4-27 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 15, and 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2019/153967; hereinafter – “Ma”). All citations to Ma are directed toward the English machine translation of the foreign document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches a portable light apparatus configured to be worn by a user, the portable light apparatus comprising at least:
a front frame (16) to house a pair of glasses and a pair of side frames connected to the front frame (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, and 0026-0031), and
an operating device (1-13) having at least a battery (13) and at least one electronic part having a light device (1-8) configured to emit light (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041),
wherein the operating device is arranged in at least one of the side frames and/or the front frame (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, and 0026-0031),
wherein the light device comprises at least two light emitting diodes (1+2+7+8 & 3+4+5+6) per each of the glasses which are arranged distributed over the front frame (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041), and
wherein each of the light emitting diodes emits light in a shape of an emission cone and wherein the emission cones are arranged angled relative to one another and relative to the front frame, and each emission cone has a defined opening angle, such that the emission cones intersect and form an elliptically shaped intersection area extending along a line of sight, wherein the elliptically shaped intersection area covers a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm between a back surface of one of the respective glasses and an apex of the user’s cornea to illuminate the line of sight of the user (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0034-0036, and 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 4, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the light device comprises at least four light emitting diodes (1+2+7+8 & 3+4+5+6) assigned to one of the glasses (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041).
Regarding claim 6, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the at least one electronic part comprises two openings to receive the glasses, wherein the light emitting diodes assigned to one of the glasses are distributed around the openings (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041).
Regarding claim 7, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 6, as above.
Ma further teaches that the light emitting diodes are arranged on a plane surface of the at least one electronic part (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041).
Regarding claim 15, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the at least one electronic part comprises at least one bent area in a nose bridge area (9) and a connection area to at least one of the side frames (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0044).
Regarding claim 18, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that one of the side frames comprises a power switch element (10, 11, 12, 13, 19) connected to the operating device (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6; Paragraphs 0022, 0027, 0029-0031, and 0039-0041).
Regarding claim 19, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the front frame comprises two frame parts permanently or temporarily connected to one another to hold the glasses and the at least one electronic part with its light device (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, and 0026-0031).
Regarding claim 20, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 19, as above.
Ma further teaches that the at least one electronic part and the light device are held in one of the frame parts (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, and 0026-0031).
Regarding claim 21, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the operating device comprises a light device driver (10, 11, 12, 13, 19) to control stroboscopic frequency and/or light sequences of the light device in the front frame (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6; Paragraphs 0022, 0027, 0029-0031, and 0039-0041).
Regarding claim 22, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the glasses are configured as transparent or colored glasses, ophthalmic grade glasses, color tinted glasses and/or functionally coated glasses and/or thermochromic coated glasses and/or electrochromic coated glasses (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, and 0026-0031).
Regarding claim 23, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the electronic device and the light device are configured to emit light with adjustable light color (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6; Paragraphs 0022-0023, 0026-0027, 0029-0032, 0036-0038, and 0041).
Regarding claim 24, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 23, as above.
Ma further teaches that the light emitting diodes are configured to emit light with a wavelength between 380 nm and 800 nm (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6; Paragraphs 0022-0023, 0026-0027, 0029-0032, 0036-0038, and 0041).
Regarding claim 25, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches a control system comprising a portable light apparatus according to claim 1 and a mobile device, wherein the portable light apparatus comprises a communication interface, a light device and an electronic device, and the mobile device comprises another communication interface and a light therapy application, wherein the light therapy application is configured to perform a communication connection via the communication interfaces to the electronic device of the portable light apparatus from the mobile device to control at least one of the following light parameters: brightness, strobe frequency and light color of the light device (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6; Paragraphs 0022-0023, 0026-0027, 0029-0032, and 0036-0041).
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, 4-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lack et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2006/0136018; hereinafter – “Lack”) in view of Ma.
Regarding claim 1, Lack teaches a portable light apparatus configured to be worn by a user, the portable light apparatus comprising at least:
a front frame (8) to house a pair of glasses and a pair of side frames connected to the front frame (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074), and
an operating device (4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11) having at least a battery (11) and at least one electronic part having a light device (4, 5) configured to emit light (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074),
wherein the operating device is arranged in at least one of the side frames and/or the front frame (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074),
wherein the light device comprises at least two light emitting diodes (4, 5) per each of the glasses which are arranged distributed over the front frame (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074), and
wherein each of the light emitting diodes emits light in a shape of an emission cone and wherein the emission cones are arranged angled relative to one another and relative to the front frame, and each emission cone has a defined opening angle, such that the emission cones intersect and form an elliptically shaped intersection area extending along a line of sight, wherein the elliptically shaped intersection area illuminates the line of sight of the user (See e.g. Figs. 4, 6, and 7; Paragraphs 0067 and 0075-0083).
Lack fails to explicitly disclose that the emission cones intersect in an intersection area which covers a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm.
However, Ma teaches an illumination device for cooperatively regulating human biological rhythms in multiple paths comprising a front frame (16) to house a pair of glasses and a pair of side frames connected to the front frame (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, and 0026-0031), and an operating device (1-13) having at least a battery (13) and at least one electronic part having a light device (1-8) configured to emit light (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041), wherein the operating device is arranged in at least one of the side frames and/or the front frame (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, and 0026-0031), wherein the light device comprises at least two light emitting diodes (1+2+7+8 & 3+4+5+6) per each of the glasses which are arranged distributed over the front frame (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041), and wherein each of the light emitting diodes emits light in a shape of an emission cone and each of the light emitting diodes are arranged angled relative to one another and relative to the front frame such that the emission cones intersect in an intersection area which covers a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm between a back surface of one of the respective glasses and an apex of the user’s cornea to illuminate a line of sight of the user (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0034-0036, and 0042-0043).
Ma teaches this intersection area “to make the optical performance of the lamp group meet the above-mentioned purpose of projecting its light into the non-visual area without affecting or significantly affecting the user’s vision” (Paragraph 0025) in order “to provide a lighting device that can coordinately regulate human biological rhythms through multiple channels, with precise and controllable adjustment effects, better efficiency and better safety” (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Lack such that the intersection area has a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm as in Ma “to make the optical performance of the lamp group meet the above-mentioned purpose of projecting its light into the non-visual area without affecting or significantly affecting the user’s vision” in order “to provide a lighting device that can coordinately regulate human biological rhythms through multiple channels, with precise and controllable adjustment effects, better efficiency and better safety,” as taught by Ma (Paragraphs 0003 and 0025), and since 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).
Regarding claim 4, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the light device comprises at least four light emitting diodes (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074).
Lack fails to explicitly disclose that the light device comprises at least four light emitting diodes assigned to one of the glasses.
However, Ma teaches an illumination device comprising a front frame and an operating device having at least a battery and at least one electronic part having a light device, the light device comprises at least four light emitting diodes (1+2+7+8 & 3+4+5+6) assigned to one of the glasses (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0026-0031, and 0035-0041).
Ma teaches these four light emitting diodes for each of the glasses “to provide a lighting device that can coordinately regulate human biological rhythms through multiple channels, with precise and controllable adjustment effects, better efficiency and better safety, in response to the defects of the existing technology that the adjustment effect is not precise, uncontrollable, inefficient and unsafe” (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Lack with four light emitting diodes for each of the glasses as in Ma “to provide a lighting device that can coordinately regulate human biological rhythms through multiple channels, with precise and controllable adjustment effects, better efficiency and better safety, in response to the defects of the existing technology that the adjustment effect is not precise, uncontrollable, inefficient and unsafe,” as taught by Ma (Paragraph 0003), and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that that the at least one electronic part is a flexible printed circuit board which has an outline shape of the front frame (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0016 and 0072).
Regarding claim 6, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the at least one electronic part comprises two openings to receive the glasses, wherein the light emitting diodes assigned to one of the glasses are distributed around the openings (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 7, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 6, as above.
Lack further teaches that the light emitting diodes are arranged on a plane surface of the at least one electronic part (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 8, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 6, as above.
Lack further teaches that a number of projecting tabs are arranged in an area of the openings and each carrying one of the light emitting diodes (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 9, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that the tabs are located in corner areas of each opening (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 10, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab comprises a tab body having a first end connected to the opening and a second free end extending away from the opening to which the light emitting diode is attached (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 11, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 10, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab has a bent portion arranged between the first end and the second free end (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 12, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab is bent about a bending radius smaller than 5 mm (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 13, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab projecting towards a back surface of the at least one electronic part forms an acute angle with an element of the electronic part (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 14, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that the at least one electronic part is made of one-piece and the tabs are shaped out from the opening (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 15, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the at least one electronic part comprises at least one bent area in a nose bridge area and a connection area to at least one of the side frames (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 16, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the operating device comprises at least one main electronic part, wherein the at least one main electronic part is a printed circuit board having an interface providing a connection to the at least one electronic part and an interface providing a connection to the battery (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074).
Regarding claim 17, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 16, as above.
Lack further teaches that the battery is configured to supply energy to the light device via the at least one electronic part and the at least one main electronic part comprises a number of interfaces to couple with an external charging device to recharge the battery and/or to couple with an external control device (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074).
Regarding claim 18, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that one of the side frames comprises a power switch element connected to the operating device (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074).
Regarding claim 19, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the front frame comprises two frame parts permanently or temporarily connected to one another to hold the glasses and the at least one electronic part with its light device (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074).
Regarding claim 20, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 19, as above.
Lack further teaches that the at least one electronic part and the light device are held in one of the frame parts (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074).
Regarding claim 21, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the operating device comprises a light device driver to control stroboscopic frequency and/or light sequences of the light device in the front frame (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 22, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the glasses are configured as transparent or colored glasses, ophthalmic grade glasses, color tinted glasses and/or functionally coated glasses and/or thermochromic coated glasses and/or electrochromic coated glasses (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0074).
Regarding claim 23, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Lack further teaches that the electronic device and the light device are configured to emit light with adjustable light color (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0020, 0025, 0039, 0042, 0048, 0061, and 0065).
Regarding claim 24, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 23, as above.
Lack further teaches that the light emitting diodes are configured to emit light with a wavelength between 380 nm and 800 nm (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0020, 0025, 0039, 0042, 0048, 0061, and 0065).
Regarding claim 26, Lack in view of Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab is bent about a bending radius smaller than 4 mm (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Claim(s) 5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Castaneda (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0181534).
Regarding claim 5, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one electronic part is a flexible printed circuit board which has an outline shape of the front frame.
However, Castaneda teaches eyewear having custom lighting comprising a front frame and an operating device with a battery and at least one electronic part (20) wherein the at least one electronic part is a flexible printed circuit board (26) which has an outline shape of the front frame (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0039, 0042-0047, 0050, 0052-0053, and 0056).
Castaneda teaches this flexible printed circuit board such that “LEDs may include multicolor LEDs, or the like, that are electrically coupled to electronics” (Paragraph 0029) and “to reduce power consumption during operation” in order “to preserve battery life” (Paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the flexible printed circuit board of Castaneda such that “LEDs may include multicolor LEDs, or the like, that are electrically coupled to electronics” and “to reduce power consumption during operation” in order “to preserve battery life,” as taught by Castaneda (Paragraphs 0029 and 0052).
Regarding claim 16, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma further teaches that the operating device comprises at least one main electronic part having an interface providing a connection to the at least one electronic part and an interface providing a connection to the battery (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6; Paragraphs 0022, 0027, 0029-0031, and 0039-0041).
Ma fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one main electronic part is a printed circuit board having an interface providing a connection to the at least one electronic part and an interface providing a connection to the battery.
However, Castaneda teaches eyewear having custom lighting comprising a front frame and an operating device with a battery and at least one electronic part wherein the operating device comprises at least one main electronic part, wherein the at least one main electronic part is a printed circuit board having an interface providing a connection to the at least one electronic part and an interface providing a connection to the battery (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0039, 0042-0047, 0050, 0052-0053, and 0056).
Castaneda teaches this flexible printed circuit board such that “LEDs may include multicolor LEDs, or the like, that are electrically coupled to electronics” (Paragraph 0029) and “to reduce power consumption during operation” in order “to preserve battery life” (Paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the flexible printed circuit board of Castaneda such that “LEDs may include multicolor LEDs, or the like, that are electrically coupled to electronics” and “to reduce power consumption during operation” in order “to preserve battery life,” as taught by Castaneda (Paragraphs 0029 and 0052).
Regarding claim 17, Ma in view of Castaneda teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 16, as above.
Ma further teaches that the battery is configured to supply energy to the light device via the at least one electronic part and the at least one main electronic part comprises a number of interfaces to couple with an external charging device to recharge the battery and/or to couple with an external control device (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 6; Paragraphs 0022, 0027, 0029-0031, and 0039-0041).
Additionally, Castaneda further teaches that the battery is configured to supply energy to the light device via the at least one electronic part and the at least one main electronic part comprises a number of interfaces to couple with an external charging device to recharge the battery and/or to couple with an external control device (e e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0039, 0042-0047, 0050, 0052-0053, and 0056).
Claim(s) 8-14 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Lack.
Regarding claim 8, Ma teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 6, as above.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose that a number of projecting tabs are arranged in an area of the openings and each carrying one of the light emitting diodes.
However, Lack teaches an apparatus for administering light stimulation comprising a front frame (8) and an operating device with a battery (11) and at least one electronic part having a light device (4, 5) wherein the at least one electronic part comprises two openings to receive the glasses, wherein the light emitting diodes assigned to one, in particular each, of the glasses are distributed around the openings and a number of projecting tabs (6, 7) are arranged in an area of the openings and each carrying one of the light emitting diodes (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Lack teaches these projecting tabs to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” (Paragraph 0027) and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes” (Paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the projecting tabs of Lack to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes,” as in Lack (Paragraphs 0027 and 0032).
Regarding claim 9, Ma in view of Lack teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that the tabs are located in corner areas of each opening (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Lack teaches these projecting tabs to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” (Paragraph 0027) and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes” (Paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the projecting tabs of Lack to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes,” as in Lack (Paragraphs 0027 and 0032), since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 10, Ma in view of Lack teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab comprises a tab body having a first end connected to the opening and a second free end extending away from the opening to which the light emitting diode is attached (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 11, Ma in view of Lack teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 10, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab has a bent portion arranged between the first end and the second free end (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Lack teaches these projecting tabs to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” (Paragraph 0027) and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes” (Paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the projecting tabs of Lack to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes,” as in Lack (Paragraphs 0027 and 0032), since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Ma in view of Lack teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab is bent about a bending radius smaller than 5 mm (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Lack teaches these projecting tabs to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” (Paragraph 0027) and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes” (Paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the projecting tabs of Lack to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes,” as in Lack (Paragraphs 0027 and 0032), since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Ma in view of Lack teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab projecting towards a back surface of the at least one electronic part forms an acute angle with an element of the electronic part (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Lack teaches these projecting tabs to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” (Paragraph 0027) and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes” (Paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the projecting tabs of Lack to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes,” as in Lack (Paragraphs 0027 and 0032), since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, Ma in view of Lack teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that the at least one electronic part is made of one-piece and the tabs are shaped out from the opening (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 26, Ma in view of Lack teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 8, as above.
Lack further teaches that each tab is bent about a bending radius smaller than 4 mm (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-10; Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073-0074).
Lack teaches these projecting tabs to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” (Paragraph 0027) and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes” (Paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma with the projecting tabs of Lack to “provide an illuminated region which permits areas of the peripheral retina to be illuminated throughout a range of movement of the eye” and “since it allows the light emitting diodes to project light via the pupil so as to illuminate areas of the peripheral retina which are not able to be illuminated when the light emitting diodes are spaced further apart, whilst also providing a viewing zone between the light emitting diodes which is adequate for viewing purposes,” as in Lack (Paragraphs 0027 and 0032), since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, or Lack in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,823,402; hereinafter – “Hao”).
Regarding claim 27, Ma and Lack in view of Ma each teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma and Lack fail to explicitly disclose that the opening angle is equal to or greater than 90°.
However, Hao teaches an illumination article comprising a light device comprising at least two light emitting diodes (15, 16, 40) wherein each of the light emitting diodes emits light in a shape of an emission cone (40, 47, 70) and wherein the emission cones are arranged angled relative to one another and relative to the front frame, and each emission cone has a defined opening angle, wherein the opening angle is less than or equal to 100° (See e.g. Figs. 1-6 and 18-20; C. 3, L. 38-55; C. 4, L. 44 – C. 5, L. 9; C. 5, L. 30 – C. 6, L. 27; C. 7, L. 50-60).
Hao teaches this opening angle for “delivering light from the lightguide that is generally easier on the eyes of someone looking toward the light source” and to “greatly reduce annoying shadowing produced by having hands in a work area illuminated by, for example, LEDs aimed directly into the work area” (C. 3, L. 8-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma or Lack such that the opening angle is equal to or greater than 90° as suggested by Hao for “delivering light from the lightguide that is generally easier on the eyes of someone looking toward the light source” and to “greatly reduce annoying shadowing produced by having hands in a work area illuminated by, for example, LEDs aimed directly into the work area,” as in Hao (C. 3, L. 8-37), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since 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).
Claim(s) 27 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, or Lack in view of Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerdt (U.S. Patent No. 6,235,046).
Regarding claim 27, Ma and Lack in view of Ma each teaches the portable light apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Ma and Lack fail to explicitly disclose that the opening angle is equal to or greater than 90°.
However, Gerdt teaches a passive photonic eye delivery system comprising a light device comprising at least two light emitting diodes (14, 30, 42) wherein each of the light emitting diodes emits light in a shape of an emission cone (72, 112, 122, 132) and wherein the emission cones are arranged angled relative to one another and relative to the front frame, and each emission cone has a defined opening angle, wherein the opening angle is equal to or greater than 90° (See e.g. Figs. 3-4, 7, 8-12, and 16; C. 7, L. 59 – C. 8, L. 44).
Gerdt teaches this opening as it “enables the user to maintain vision during chronotherapy” (C. 2, L. 31-52) and “overcomes the problems associated with passive chronotherapy but providing an inexpensive, portable device that overcomes the above disadvantages” (C. 2, L. 25-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable light apparatus of Ma or Lack such that the opening angle is equal to or greater than 90° as suggested by Gerdt as it “enables the user to maintain vision during chronotherapy” and “overcomes the problems associated with passive chronotherapy but providing an inexpensive, portable device that overcomes the above disadvantages,” as in Gerdt (C. 2, L. 25-52), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 7, filed 04/20/2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 is amended in light of the Office’s comments for clarity.” However, the claim amendments do not address the indefiniteness issues with the claim. Specifically, as detailed above, it remains unclear how an intersection area of emission cones can cover "a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm between the back surface of one of the respective glasses and the apex of the user's cornea." It is unclear if the intersection of the cones must have a dimension that is between 5 mm and 35 mm or if the cones must intersect at some point that is between 5 mm and 35 mm between the two elements. That is, it is unclear if the intersection should be a 30 mm long intersection that covers an entire distance of 5 mm to 35 mm between the surfaces or if the intersection should be any elliptical intersection formed in a region within the range between 5 mm and 35 mm between the surfaces.” Additionally, it is unclear if the “length range” is referring to a length of the elliptical intersection area or the length between the back surface and the cornea. Further, if a user’s cornea is less than 35 mm from a back surface of the glasses, it is unclear how such an intersection area can be formed.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-14, filed 04/20/2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in view of Ma and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of Lack and Ma have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ma does not teach that “the emission cones are oriented such that they ‘intersect and form an elliptical shaped intersection area extending along a line of sight’ (the horizontal line), thereby illuminating the visual axis” and “Ma explicitly teaches that the axes of the light beams do not intersect with the horizontal axis (line of sight) passing through the center of the pupil” because “the axis of each light beam does not intersect with the horizontal axis passing through the center of the pupil of the eye.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not require that the axes of the light beams intersect at all. Rather, the claims merely recite that “the emission cones are arranged angled relative to one another and relative to the front frame, and each emission cone has a defined opening angle, such that the emission cones intersect and form an elliptically shaped intersection area extending along a line of sight.” One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize and appreciate that the emission cone is not the same as the axis of the light beam.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the axes of the light beams must intersect with the horizontal axis) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Ma very clearly describes and shows (e.g. in Fig. 3) emission cones which intersect between a back surface of one of the respective glasses and an apex of the user’s cornea as required by the claim.
Furthermore, Ma explicitly teaches and shows an intersection area between the back surface and the apex of the user’s cornea as required by the claim. This can be seen in Fig. 3 of Ma, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Ma teaches the claimed intersection area.
Applicant further argues that “Ma clearly fails to teach or indicate aligning emission cones such that the resulting intersection area is elliptical shaped and extends along the line of sight and over a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm behind the glasses” because “a possible intersection area in Ma is limited to a narrow spatial region” and “The claimed length range between 0.5 cm and 3.5 cm requires that the intersection area spans (as continuous spatial extension) a depth extending from 0.5cm to 3.5cm, thereby covering a larger region.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Examiner notes that the limitation that “the elliptically shaped intersection area covers a length range between 5 mm and 35 mm between a back surface of one of the respective glasses and an apex of the user’s cornea to illuminate the line of sight of the user” is indefinite as detailed previously and above. Notably, it is unclear if the intersection of the cones must have a dimension that is between 5 mm and 35 mm or if the cones must intersect at some point that is between 5 mm and 35 mm between the two elements. That is, it is unclear if the intersection should be a 30 mm long intersection that covers an entire distance of 5 mm to 35 mm between the surfaces or if the intersection should be any elliptical intersection formed in a region within the range between 5 mm and 35 mm between the surfaces.”
Further, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, given the angles and dimensions provided in Paragraphs 0024-0026 of Ma, the emission cones of the LEDs in Ma’s device have an intersection region with a length of 8.1 mm between the back surface of the glasses and the apex of the user’s cornea, lying within Applicant’s claimed range. To be clear, the cones intersect in an elliptical region that extends along the horizontal axis with a length of 8.1 mm, as can be seen in Fig. 3, reproduced above. Thus, Examiner maintains that Ma anticipates the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights