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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that “continuous light or intermittent light or a combination thereof” read “continuous light, intermittent light, or a combination thereof”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“holding or mounting unit” in claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20;
“lighting unit” in claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14-15, and 19;
“light controller unit” in claims 1, 6-9, 13, and 15-16;
“thermal controller unit” in claims 2, 11-13, and 18;
“rotating or shaking mechanism” in claims 5, 12, 14, 16, and 20;
“holding unit” in claim 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 14, 16, and 20, the claim limitation “rotating or shaking mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description in the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the function, as will be discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section below. Therefore, the claim limitation lacks adequate written description support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20 recite the limitation a “holding or mounting unit”. The claims refer to this as one and the same structure; however, the specification and drawings describe these features are two different components (Fig. 1A holding unit 12; Fig. 1B mounting unit 23). Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the holding unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 14, 16, and 20, the claim limitation “rotating or shaking mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The rotating or shaking mechanism is only described in the written description as a rotary or reciprocal shaking mechanism that may allow agitation of the spermatozoa in a buffered physiological solution (para. 0036). The written description does not appear to disclose any actual structure for this device to perform the function of rotating or shaking. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2017/0362561 A1) in view of Lubart (US 6,379,939) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising: a holding or mounting unit (chamber 101) configured to hold or support a container (plate 110); a lighting unit (light source 120) configured to irradiate the container held or supported by the holding or mounting unit (para. 0055 “light source 120 installed in the chamber 101 to irradiate light toward the plate 110”); and a light controller unit configured to control the lighting unit (light quantity controller 130). Chung et al. does not explicitly disclose the light having wavelengths in a range of 390-420 nm. However, Lubart discloses light having wavelengths ranging from about 300 to about 1000 nm has a positive effect on sperm fertilizing capability (Col. 1, lines 29-32). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed range of a light having wavelengths in a range of 390-420 nm from the broader prior art range of a light having wavelengths ranging from about 300 to about 1000 nm with a reasonable expectation that it would have a positive effect on sperm fertilizing capability. This method for modifying Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lubart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chung et al. and Lubart to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Though Chung et al.’s device is directed to a photobioreactor, the problem faced by the inventor of the instant application is irradiating spermatozoa cells with light, and Chung et al.’s configuration of a photobioreactor comprising a chamber for holding cells and light sources is reasonably pertinent to solving this problem.
Regarding claim 2, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus further comprising a thermal controller unit configured to control a temperature of the sperm container at a predefined temperature (abstract “temperature controller controlling a temperature of the plate”).
Regarding claim 4, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the light source is a light-emitting diode or a laser diode (para. 0015).
Regarding claim 5, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the holding or mounting unit is provided with a rotating or shaking mechanism to rotate or shake the container (vibrator 700).
Regarding claim 6, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the light controller unit is configured to control the lighting unit to emit continuous light or intermittent light or a combination thereof (para. 0019 “The light quantity controller may be a dimmer connected to the light source to control a supply amount of current to control brightness of the light source”).
Regarding claim 10, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus further comprising a housing having in its inside, at least the holding or mounting unit and the lighting unit (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus further comprising a thermal controller unit configured to control a temperature of the container at a predefined temperature (abstract “temperature controller controlling a temperature of the plate”), wherein the holding or mounting unit is provided with a rotating or shaking mechanism to rotate or shake the container (vibrator 700).
Regarding claim 17, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the holding unit has one or more grooves, each having a rectangular, triangle, or arc cross section (Fig. 1 space where the plate 110 is mounted; para. 0056 “the chamber 101 is typically provided with a receiving space”).
Regarding claim 18, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus further comprising a thermal controller unit configured to control a temperature of the container at a predefined temperature (abstract “temperature controller controlling a temperature of the plate”).
Regarding claim 20, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the holding or mounting unit is provided with a rotating or shaking mechanism to rotate or shake the container (vibrator 700).
Claims 3, 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2017/0362561 A1) in view of Lubart (US 6,379,939) (already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 2019/0168017 A1, hereinafter referred to as Morita ‘017).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the lighting unit comprises a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength spectrum with a peak wavelength at 405 ± 15 nm (see claim 1 above), but does not disclose light with a half-width of 0.1-20 nm. However, Morita ‘017 discloses a light emission spectrum where full width at half maximum is equal to or less than 20 nm (abstract) which is safe parameter that will not damage cells (paras. 0011-0013). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘017 configuration of light with a half-width of equal to or less than 20 nm in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would be a safe parameter that will not damage cells. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘017. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘017 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, modified Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a temperature controller and a lighting unit comprising a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength spectrum with a peak wavelength at 405 ± 15 nm (see claim 1 above), but does not disclose light with a half-width of 0.1-20 nm. However, Morita ‘017 discloses a light emission spectrum where full width at half maximum is equal to or less than 20 nm (abstract) which is safe parameter that will not damage cells (paras. 0011-0013). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘017 configuration of light with a half-width of equal to or less than 20 nm in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would be a safe parameter that will not damage cells. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘017. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘017 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a vibrator to agitate the plate in the chamber (700), but does not disclose light with a half-width of 0.1-20 nm. However, Morita ‘017 discloses a light emission spectrum where full width at half maximum is equal to or less than 20 nm (abstract) which is safe parameter that will not damage cells (paras. 0011-0013). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘017 configuration of light with a half-width of equal to or less than 20 nm in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would be a safe parameter that will not damage cells. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘017. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘017 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, modified Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the lighting unit comprises a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength spectrum with a peak wavelength at 405 ± 15 nm (see claim 1 above), but does not disclose light with a half-width of 0.1-20 nm. However, Morita ‘017 discloses a light emission spectrum where full width at half maximum is equal to or less than 20 nm (abstract) which is safe parameter that will not damage cells (paras. 0011-0013). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘017 configuration of light with a half-width of equal to or less than 20 nm in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would be a safe parameter that will not damage cells. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘017. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘017 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Claims 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2017/0362561 A1) in view of Lubart (US 6,379,939) (already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 2018/0193659 A1, hereinafter referred to as Morita ‘659).
Regarding claim 7, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a light controller unit (light quantity controller 130), but does not disclose wherein the light controller unit is configured to control the lighting unit to emit pulsed light whose pulse width is 100 ms or less and whose duty ratio is 50% or less. However, Morita ‘659 discloses a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less (para. 0094) which provides a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation (para. 0093). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘659 configuration of a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would provide a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘659. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘659 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a temperature controller (abstract) and a light quantity controller (130), but does not disclose wherein the light controller unit is configured to control the lighting unit to emit pulsed light whose pulse width is 100 ms or less and whose duty ratio is 50% or less. However, Morita ‘659 discloses a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less (para. 0094) which provides a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation (para. 0093). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘659 configuration of a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would provide a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘659. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘659 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a vibrator to agitate the plate in the chamber (700) and a light quantity controller (130), but does not disclose wherein the light controller unit is configured to control the lighting unit to emit pulsed light whose pulse width is 100 ms or less and whose duty ratio is 50% or less. However, Morita ‘659 discloses a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less (para. 0094) which provides a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation (para. 0093). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘659 configuration of a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would provide a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘659. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘659 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2017/0362561 A1) in view of Lubart (US 6,379,939) (already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robins et al. (US 2007/0129776 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a light controller unit (light quantity controller 130), but does not disclose wherein the light controller unit comprises a pulse width modulation circuit. However, Robins et al. discloses a pulse width modulation circuit which determines the frequency of pulses of light and light intensity (para. 0221). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Robins et al. configuration of a pulse width modulation circuit in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would determine the frequency of pulses of light and light intensity. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Robins et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Robins et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2017/0362561 A1) in view of Lubart (US 6,379,939) (already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thai et al. (US 2018/0029908 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chung et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a light source (120) and a light quantity controller (130), but does not disclose wherein the light controller unit comprises a timer. However, Thai et al. discloses a timer which periodically turns a light source off and on, which optimizes algae growth (para. 0092). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Thai et al. configuration of a light source timer in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would optimize operation of the device. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Thai et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Thai et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Though Thai et al.’s device is directed to a water filtering system for growing algae, the problem faced by the inventor of the instant application is controlling the amount of light irradiating spermatozoa, and Thai et al.’s configuration of a light source timer is reasonably pertinent to solving this problem.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2017/0362561 A1) in view of Lubart (US 6,379,939) (already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 2019/0168017 A1, hereinafter referred to as Morita ‘017) and Morita et al. (US 2018/0193659 A1, hereinafter referred to as Morita ‘659).
Regarding claim 15, modified Chung et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the lighting unit comprises a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength spectrum with a peak wavelength at 405 ± 15 nm (see claim 1 above), but does not disclose light with a half-width of 0.1-20 nm. However, Morita ‘017 discloses a light emission spectrum where full width at half maximum is equal to or less than 20 nm (abstract) which is safe parameter that will not damage cells (paras. 0011-0013). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘017 configuration of light with a half-width of equal to or less than 20 nm in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would be a safe parameter that will not damage cells. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘017. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘017 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Chung et al. also discloses a light quantity controller (130), but does not disclose wherein the light controller unit is configured to control the lighting unit to emit pulsed light whose pulse width is 100 ms or less and whose duty ratio is 50% or less. However, Morita ‘659 discloses a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less (para. 0094) which provides a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation (para. 0093). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Morita ‘659 configuration of a pulse width modulation control with a pulse width of 4 µs and a duty ratio of 50% or less in modified Chung et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would provide a therapeutic effect that is the same as that during continuous irradiation. This method for improving modified Chung et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Morita ‘659. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chung et al. and Morita ‘659 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Codony Iglesias et al. (WO 2016/042384 A1) (already of record) discloses an apparatus for increasing the fertilizing capacity of sperm cells including a light source for irradiating the cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA whose telephone number is (703)756-5517. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights