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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 17, 20, and 22) in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-24, 26, 28-29, 31, 34-35, 37, 42, and 46-48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/25/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 08/23/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s gaze" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “wherein the at least one screen is: … the light emitting source” renders claim 8 indefinite. It is unclear how the at least one screen can be the light emitting source when claim 1 introduced the light emitting source and the screen as separate components. Perhaps the at least one screen is comprising/including the light emitting source? Please make appropriate correction and/or provide explanation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “at least one target area” in lines 5-6, whereas at least one target area was already introduced claim 10 (line 2). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different at least one target area. Consider changing to “the at least one target area”.
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bahmani, et al. (WO 2018/224671 – cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Bahmani teaches (Fig. 2) a device for selective application of stimulus light to an optic nerve head of one of a left eye and a right eye of a user (Par. [0029] – The disclosure also teaches a device for implementing the method. The device comprises a light emitting source for emitting the light, an identifier for identifying location of an optic disk on a retina in the one or more eyes, and an optical system adapted to apply selectively the emitted light onto the optic disk), the device comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 110; Fig. 2, # 7, 34; Fig. 3, # 330) at least one light emitting source configured to position emitted stimulus light to impinge onto the optic nerve head based on a determined location of the optic nerve head with respect to the user's gaze (Par. [0032]; Par. [0038]; Par. [0041]; Par. [0045] – The lenses 25 have an eye tracking system 10 mounted on them to establish the position of pupil and the direction of sight. Each of the lenses has a light emitting source 34, which could be for example an LED, a laser light or a projection/generation on a display; Par. [0047] – An optical system 7 directs the light from the light emitting source 34 onto the optic disk 330 of the eye 300; Par. [0069] – In another calibration procedure, an eye tracking system together with a 3D model of the eye 300, guides the first installation of the light emitting source 34 on the spectacle frame 24 for the wearer by measuring the gaze direction and the relative position of the optical disk 330 to the foveal fixation);
at least one screen configured to fixate the user's gaze by engaging the user with content displayed on the at least one screen (Par. [0063] – In another aspect, the stimulation pattern is provided in a gaze-contingent manner to the eye by a change in the wavelength, luminance, and other parameters of the display (e.g. TV, monitor, screens, virtual reality (VR) goggles (including light-field technology in which enables light from a display to hit multiple focal planes in the eye), augmented reality (AR) goggles, mixed reality (MR) goggles, beamer, internet of things (IoT) devices, smart home appliances, smart lighting systems, interior design arrangements, car internal displays or windshield etc.) on the regions of the display which correspond to the blind spot… Such an embodiment is ideal for applications where the patient spends working hours in front of a computer monitor or is watching TV, etc.);
(Fig. 2, # 40) a processor for selecting the stimulus light (Par. [0029] – A controller may be provided for controlling the device. For example, the controller would adapt the optical system and/or the light composition.; Par. [0043]).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Regarding claim 2, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the emitted stimulus light is configured to stimulate melanopsin and/or the emitted stimulus light is blue light (Par. [0019] – The method enables stimulation of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) by directly shining light on the optic disk where the melanopsin-containing axons of ipRGCs converge; Par. [0042]; Par. [0045] The light from the LED could be blue; Par. [0056]).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Regarding claim 6, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, wherein (Fig. 2, # 7 and 34) the at least one light emitting source is further configured to position the emitted stimulus light to impinge on one of the left eye and the right eye of the user (Par. [0045-0047] – It will be appreciated that the optical system 7 and the rails 16 enable the light from the light emitting source 34 to be directed within the eye 300 and adjusted easily for different users); and/or wherein the at least one light emitting source is further configured to dimension the emitted stimulus light to impinge on a portion of the optic nerve head corresponding in size to 80% of the optic nerve head.
Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Regarding claim 8, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one screen is:
arranged normal to the user’s gaze (Par. [0063] - In another aspect, the stimulation pattern is provided in a gaze-contingent manner to the eye by a change in the wavelength, luminance, and other parameters of the display (e.g. TV, monitor, screens, virtual reality (VR) goggles (including light-field technology in which enables light from a display to hit multiple focal planes in the eye), augmented reality (AR) goggles, mixed reality (MR) goggles, beamer, internet of things (IoT) devices, smart home appliances, smart lighting systems, interior design arrangements, car internal displays or windshield etc.) on the regions of the display which correspond to the blind spot… Such an embodiment is ideal for applications where the patient spends working hours in front of a computer monitor or is watching TV, etc.; Examiner notes that it would be understood that the screen is arranged normal to user’s gaze); and/or
arranged at a constant distance from the left eye and the right eye (Par. [0063]); and/or
the light emitting source (Par. [0063]).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Regarding claim 10, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one screen is configured to display the content within at least one target area of the at least one screen (Par. [0063]; Par. [0065] – For such an embodiment, the user must use the spectacle frame in routine static scenarios, like working in front of a monitor or watching TV), the at least one target area corresponding to an area having a diameter of 1.0 to 5.0 degrees in a foveal region of the left eye and the right eye when the gaze is fixated on the at least one target area; and/or wherein at least one target area is arranged at the center of the at least one screen; and/or wherein the at least one target area is configured to fixate one of the left eve and the right eve of the user (Par. [0065] – In this embodiment, the gaze dynamics is limited and a pinhole ensures that the light therapy remains invisible inside the blind spot. For such an embodiment, the user must use the spectacle frame in routine static scenarios, like working in front of a monitor or watching TV).
Therefore, claim 10 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Regarding claim 14, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the device is or comprises a smartphone or is a virtual reality headset, or wherein the device comprises a smartphone and a virtual reality headset, wherein the smartphone is insertable into the virtual reality headset (Par. [0063] – In another aspect, the stimulation pattern is provided in a gaze-contingent manner to the eye by a change in the wavelength, luminance, and other parameters of the display (e.g. TV, monitor, screens, virtual reality (VR) goggles (including light-field technology in which enables light from a display to hit multiple focal planes in the eye), augmented reality (AR) goggles, mixed reality (MR) goggles, beamer, internet of things (IoT) devices, smart home appliances, smart lighting systems, interior design arrangements, car internal displays or windshield etc.) on the regions of the display which correspond to the blind spot.).
Therefore, claim 14 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Regarding claim 17, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 14, wherein the virtual reality headset comprises at least one lens for forming a two-lens system with at least one of the left eye and the right eye of the user; and/or wherein the virtual reality headset comprises one optical path extending between the at least one screen and the left eye and comprises another optical path extending between the at least one screen and the right eye (Par. [0063] – virtual reality (VR) goggles; The Examiner notes that VR goggles implies at least one lens for forming a two-lens system).
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Regarding claim 22, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising (Fig. 2, # 42) a memory device configured to store data relating to the location of the optic nerve head (Par. [0039] – The light source setup step 100 is the process of selection of the optimal wavelength, intensity, temporal and spatial pattern of a light stimulus via a controller device based on internal parameters of the body of the user or external parameters of the ambient.; Par. [0043] – The apparatus 1 is connected to a computer 42 and a controller 40 by a cable 44 (or through a wireless connection); The Examiner notes that a computer implies a memory; Par. [0071]), the data being obtained from one of user-controlled calibration, input into the device of fundus image data, and population data (Pars. [0069-0071] – In another calibration procedure, an eye tracking system together with a 3D model of the eye 300, guides the first installation of the light emitting source 34 on the spectacle frame 24 for the wearer by measuring the gaze direction and the relative position of the optical disk 330 to the foveal fixation. … A controller is configured so as to provide a personalized light therapy for the patient with, for example, a specific emitted wavelength in front of the eye 300).
Therefore, claim 22 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahmani, et al. (WO 2018/224671 – cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Bahmani doesn’t explicitly state the limitation of instant claim 4, that is wherein the emitted stimulus light:
flickers at a frequency in a frequency range between 6 and 20 Hz; and/or
has an illuminance of more than 20 melanopic lux.
However, Bahmani does teach that temporal structure of the stimulating light (frequency of the flicker, on/off pattern etc.) can be optimized for the ipRGCs with regards to the needs of the patient (Par. [0054]). Bahmani teaches that the method enables stimulation of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) by directly shining light on the optic disk where the melanopsin-containing axons of ipRGCs converge (Par. [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and popularrive at flickers at a frequency in a frequency range between 6 and 20 Hz, recognizing that flicker frequency is directly correlated to stimulation light on the optical disk where the melanopsin-containing axons of ipRGCs converge, which is a desirable characteristic, 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahmani, et al. (WO 2018/224671 – cited on IDS), in view of Black (US 2020/0174057).
Regarding claim 20, Bahmani teaches the device of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Bahmani teaches the stimulation pattern is provided in a gaze-contingent manner to the eye by a change in the wavelength, luminance, and other parameters of the display (e.g. TV, monitor, screens, virtual reality (VR) goggles (including light-field technology in which enables light from a display to hit multiple focal planes in the eye), augmented reality (AR) goggles, mixed reality (MR) goggles, beamer, internet of things (IoT) devices, smart home appliances, smart lighting systems, interior design arrangements, car internal displays or windshield etc.) on the regions of the display which correspond to the blind spot (Par. [0063]). However, Bahmani does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 20, that is wherein the device is further comprising a game controller configured for the user to engage with the content displayed on the at least one screen; and/or wherein the game controller is further configured to adjust a position of the stimulus light within the screen during calibration.
Black is directed to analogous art and teaches (Fig. 1) an assembly, generally designated 10, that can include at least one output device 12, wherein the output device 12 may be implemented by, for example, a headphone, a VR or AR headset, etc. (Par. [0020]). Black also teaches the limitation of instant claim 20, that is wherein (Fig. 1, # 56, 58, 60) the device is further comprising a game controller configured for the user to engage with the content displayed on the at least one screen (Par. [0027] – The controller 56 may communicate via wired and/or wireless paths with a computer simulation console 58. In an example non-limiting implementation, the controller 56 may be a DualShock® (DS-4) game controller and the computer simulation console 58 may be a PlayStation® console. The controller 56 typically includes manipulable buttons or keys to input commands into the console 58. The extension port device 52 may likewise comprise one or more manipulable buttons or keys 59 that can be manipulated to input commands to the console 58 via the controller 56. In any case, the computer simulation console may output video to a video display 60); and/or wherein the game controller is further configured to adjust a position of the stimulus light within the screen during calibration.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Black’s game controller into Bahmani’s device utilizing, for example, a TV or VR goggles, because doing so would be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have implemented the game controller into Bahmani’s device using VR, since Black demonstrates using the game controller 56 with a VR headset 12 (see Fig. 1 of Black). One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of combining Bahmani’s device with Black’s game controller would be predictable since Black demonstrates (Fig. 1) using a game controller 56 to input commands to a computer simulation console 58 that outputs video to a video display 60 (see Par. [0027] of Black).
Therefore, claim 20 is unpatentable over Bahmani, et al. and Black.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Samec, et al. (US 2016/0270656)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights