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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The previous claim objection of claim 6 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Broeng does not teach operating the first light source and the second light source at a different frequency. However, this limitation is not recited in independent claim 1. While this limitation is recited in dependent claim 2, Broeng teaches: ¶187-two alternating light sources in a sinusoidal pattern; ¶12-a first light source comprises the wavelengths 460 nm, 650 nm, and 570 nm, and a second light source comprises the wavelengths 490 nm, 770 nm (or 670 nm) and 600nm; see Table 1 where differing wavelengths correspond to differing frequency values. Frequency and wavelength are inversely related. Therefore, Broeng teaching different wavelengths for the first and second light sources would result in differing frequencies.
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.
(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, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Broeng (WO 2018152255 filed on 2/14/18).
Regarding claim 1, Broeng teaches a lighting apparatus, comprising: a controller (¶111-a controller); and a light source (¶8-light source), wherein: the controller is configured to operate the light source according to a periodical waveform at a first frequency (F1) between 20Hz and 45Hz (¶8-a blue light source that operates at a frequency in the range from 20 to 50 Hz (preferably around 40 Hz); ¶233-light sources are modulated in a sinusoidal form), the periodical waveform is decomposable into a first periodical baseline waveform at a second frequency (F2) and a second periodical baseline waveform at a third frequency (F3) such that F1 = F3 – F2 (¶12-the two light sources are substantially synchronized such that when the first light source is turned on, the second light source is turned off, and vice versa. Hence, the experience by a human is constant white light illumination; ¶187-two alternating light sources in a sinusoidal pattern), and a light output of the lighting apparatus appears flicker-free (free of flicker) to eyes of a subject (¶176-the “critical flicker fusion frequency”, “flicker fusion threshold”, or “flicker fusion rate” refers to a concept in the psychophysics of vision. It is defined as the frequency at which an intermittent (e.g., blinking) light stimulus appears to be completely steady to the average human observer. Flicker fusion threshold is related to persistence of vision; ¶211-a phototherapy device is provided that delivers a blinking (flickering) illumination at a therapeutic intensity and wavelength (e.g., blue light component) where the blinking is substantially undetectable by human vision even where the blink frequency is below the flicker fusion threshold).
Regarding claim 2, Broeng teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first periodical baseline waveform and the second periodical baseline waveform have a same waveform style but differ in frequency (¶187-two alternating light sources in a sinusoidal pattern; ¶12-a first light source comprises the wavelengths 460 nm, 650 nm, and 570 nm, and a second light source comprises the wavelengths 490 nm, 770 nm (or 670 nm) and 600nm; see Table 1 where differing wavelengths correspond to differing frequency values).
Regarding claim 4, Broeng teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the F1 frequency is 40Hz (¶8-a blue light source that operates at a frequency in the range from 20 to 50 Hz (preferably around 40 Hz).
Regarding claim 7, Broeng teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) or organic LED (OLED) (¶100-wherein said first light source comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs); ¶180).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zao (US 20140058483 filed on 8/23/13).
Regarding claim 3, Broeng teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. However, Broeng does not teach wherein the periodical waveform has more than one peak within a full cycle.
Zao teaches wherein the periodical waveform has more than one peak within a full cycle (Fig. 6A- see multiple LB peaks relative to LA for a full cycle).
Zao relates to a control technique and a stimuli generating technique in connection with visual evoked responses. More particularly, the present invention is related to stimuli generating methods, devices and control systems for inducing visual evoked potentials from human viewers using imperceptible flickering multi-color lights (¶3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Broeng to include wherein the periodical waveform has more than one peak within a full cycle of Zao in order for improvements in viewer's physiological or psychological conditions for examples: the reduction of anxiety, depression, migraine severity or a pause of seizure (Zao, ¶10).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carstensen (US 20230256262 filed on 4/20/23).
Regarding claim 5, Broeng teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. However, Broeng does not teach wherein the F2 frequency is greater than 50Hz.
Carstensen teaches wherein the F2 frequency is greater than 50Hz (¶48-a second brain stimulation rate, e.g. 80 Hz or 90 Hz).
Carstensen relates to a phototherapeutic apparatus, in particular, a phototherapeutic apparatus for light-induced brain stimulation (¶2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Broeng to include wherein the F2 frequency is greater than 50Hz of Carstensen in order for treating or preventing a neurodegenerative disease, such as Alzheimer's disease (Carstensen, ¶45) and stroboscopic flickering at frequencies of 50 Hz or higher are by many subjects not perceived as annoying (Carstensen, ¶48).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeng further in view of Carstensen as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Keil (WO 2024189112 filed on 3/13/24).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Broeng and Carstensen teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 5. However, the combination of Broeng and Carstensen does not teach wherein the F2 frequency is 80Hz and the F3 frequency is 120Hz.
Keil teaches wherein the F2 frequency is 80Hz.and the F3 frequency is 120Hz (¶76-a frequency range between 80 and 250 Hz; ¶138-the combination enables to selectively and sequentially target the different cells of the retina 25with high-frequency flickering light with a frequency of 120).
Keil relates to a device for inducing ripples in a brain of a subject, a system for improving a memory retention of an object, and a method for inducing the ripples in the brain of the subject (¶2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Broeng to include wherein the F2 frequency is 80Hz.and the F3 frequency is 120Hz of Keil because the flickering light stimulates the retina 25 of the subject 20 with a high frequency (Keil, ¶86) and for prevention or treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (Keil, ¶41).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights