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
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No 20180133431 to Malchano et al. (hereinafter “Malchano” – previously presented) in view of US Pat Pub No. 20070233207A1 to Poirrier et al. (hereinafter “Poirrier”).
Claim(s) ) 1, 7-8, 10, and 13-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20200026101 to Rosero et al (hereinafter “Rosero” – previously presented) in view of US Pat Pub No. 20070233207A1 to Poirrier et al. (hereinafter “Poirrier”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosero as modified by Poirrier, and further in view of EP1642609 to Klose (previously presented). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosero as modified by Poirrier, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20100174345 to Ashdown (previously presented).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 1-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No 20180133431 to Malchano et al. (hereinafter “Malchano” – previously presented) in view of US Pat Pub No. 20070233207A1 to Poirrier et al. (hereinafter “Poirrier”).
Regarding claim 1. Malchano discloses a light emitting ophthalmic lens (para 0265-0266, 0268 fig. 4A), comprising: a lens (para 0268 “lens or solid material 425”, fig. 4A); a light guiding element attached to the lens (fig. 4A, para 0269 “diffuser element”; para 0262 “one or more mirrors for reflecting or redirecting light []”); and a light source oriented to emit a light towards the light guiding element (para 0261 “light source 305 [] include any type of light source or light emitting device”, fig. 4A).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the light guiding element directs the light to specific areas of a retina of a user”, it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding what it considers to be the specific areas of the retina of the user. As written, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any light emitted in front of the user is understood to be at least partially directed to a portion of retina of a user.
However, to advance prosecution, it is assumed that Malchano fails to disclose “wherein the light guiding element directs the light to specific areas of a retina of a user”.
Poirrier, from a similar field of endeavor teaches arranging the light source at the periphery of the field of vision so as to allow the usual activities of the individual, and in deflecting said light rays onto a specific zone of the retina so as to maintain vision (abstract, para 0018, 0021, 0035, etc.). 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 disclosure of Malchano with the teachings of Poirrier to provide the predictable result of emitting light to the retina of the user while maintaining vision.
Regarding claim 2. Malchano as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light is comprised of a blue light (para 0261).
Regarding claim 3. Malchano as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 2, wherein the blue light has a wavelength of between 460 nanometers and 480 nanometers (para 0261, 0249 “blue (e.g., 450-495 nm)”).
Regarding claim 4. Malchano as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light is comprised of a red light (para 0261).
Regarding claim 5. Malchano as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light is comprised of a green light (para 0261).
Regarding claim 6. Malchano as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light is comprised of a yellow light (para 0261, 0249 “yellow”, also see para 0333).
Regarding claim 11. Malchano as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light source is comprised of a light emitting diode (para 0261 “LED”).
Claim(s) ) 1, 7-8, 10, and 13-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20200026101 to Rosero et al (hereinafter “Rosero” – previously presented) in view of US Pat Pub No. 20070233207A1 to Poirrier et al. (hereinafter “Poirrier”).
Regarding claim 1. Rosero discloses a light emitting ophthalmic lens (para 0056, abstract), comprising: a lens (para 0039, 0041, 0056 “transparent substrate and lens layer”); a light guiding element attached to the lens (para 0048-0049); and a light source oriented to emit a light towards the light guiding element (para 42).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the light guiding element directs the light to specific areas of a retina of a user”, it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding what it considers to be the specific areas of the retina of the user. As written, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any light emitted in front of the user is understood to be at least partially directed to a portion of retina of a user.
However, to advance prosecution, it is assumed that Rosero fails to disclose “wherein the light guiding element directs the light to specific areas of a retina of a user”.
Poirrier, from a similar field of endeavor teaches arranging the light source at the periphery of the field of vision so as to allow the usual activities of the individual, and in deflecting said light rays onto a specific zone of the retina so as to maintain vision (abstract, para 0018, 0021, 0035, etc.). 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 disclosure of Rosero with the teachings of Poirrier to provide the predictable result of emitting light to the retina of the user while maintaining vision.
Regarding claim 7. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light guiding element is oriented so as to emit light directly onto an outer area of a retina of an eye (fig. 3-4, para 0009, 0054).
Regarding claim 8. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light source is attached to an outer rim of the lens (abstract, para 0009, etc.).
Regarding claim 10. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light source is attached to a surface of the lens (para 0042, figs 2 and 4)
Regarding claim 13. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light guiding element is embedded within a body of the lens (para 0048, 0050, 0060).
Regarding claim 14. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light guiding element is positioned on a surface of the lens (para 0048, 0050, 0060).
Regarding claim 15. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light guiding element is comprised of a microlens (para 0060).
Regarding claim 16. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light guiding element is comprised of an openings formed within a body of the lens (para 0050, also see para 0048).
Regarding claim 17. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light guiding element is comprised of a laminate (para 0050) having areas of a different refractive index (para 0013).
Regarding claim 18. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the light guiding element is comprised of voids formed within a body of the lens (para 0050).
Regarding claim 19. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, further comprising a frame (para 0040, frame 12), wherein the lens is attached to the frame (para 0041, fig 3), and wherein the light source is attached to the frame (para 0042, fig 3).
Regarding claim 20. Rosero discloses a light emitting ophthalmic lens system (abstract, par a0056), comprising: a lens (para 0039, 0041 and 0056); a plurality of light guiding elements attached to the lens (para 0048, 0049); a light source attached to the lens, the light source being configured to emit a light towards the plurality of light guiding elements (para 0042); and a control unit in electrical communication with the light source (para 0043 “electronic components [] to power and control the operation []).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the control unit and the light guiding elements are configured to direct light from the light source to specific areas of a retina of a user”, it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding what it considers to be the specific areas of the retina of the user. As written, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any light emitted in front of the user is understood to be at least partially directed to a portion of retina of a user.
However, to advance prosecution, it is assumed that Rosero fails to disclose “wherein the control unit and the light guiding elements are configured to direct light from the light source to specific areas of a retina of a user”.
Poirrier, from a similar field of endeavor teaches arranging the light source at the periphery of the field of vision so as to allow the usual activities of the individual, and in deflecting said light rays onto a specific zone of the retina so as to maintain vision (abstract, para 0018, 0021, 0035, etc.). 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 disclosure of Rosero with the teachings of Poirrier to provide the predictable result of emitting light to the retina of the user while maintaining vision.
Regarding claim 21. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens system of claim 20, wherein the control unit is comprised of a power source (para 0043 “power supply 22”).
Regarding claim 22. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens system of claim 20, wherein the control unit is comprised of a sensor (para 0047- sensing input).
Regarding claim 23. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens system of claim 20, wherein the control unit is operable to adjust an intensity of the light emitted from the light source (para 0044).
Regarding claim 24. Rosero discloses a method of providing optical light therapy (para 0054 “light 27 is redirected by the refractive elements 26 to emanate from the entire second inner surface 16 of the transparent substrate 14”, para 0001, 0003, 00007 “use in the treatment of light related medical conditions”), comprising: orienting a light guiding element near an eye (para 0054, fig 3); orienting a light source towards the light guiding element (para 0054 fig. 3); emitting a light from the light source towards the light guiding element (para 0054, light emitted from the light sources 21”); and guiding light from the light guiding element towards the eye (para 0054, fig. 2-4).
Regarding the limitation “towards a specific area of a retina of a user”, it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding what it considers to be the specific areas of the retina of the user. As written, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any light emitted in front of the user is understood to be at least partially directed to a portion of retina of a user.
However, to advance prosecution, it is assumed that Rosero fails to disclose “towards a specific area of a retina of a user”.
Poirrier, from a similar field of endeavor teaches arranging the light source at the periphery of the field of vision so as to allow the usual activities of the individual, and in deflecting said light rays onto a specific zone of the retina so as to maintain vision (abstract, para 0018, 0021, 0035, etc.). 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 disclosure of Rosero with the teachings of Poirrier to provide the predictable result of emitting light to the retina of the user while maintaining vision.
Regarding claim 25. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the method of claim 24, wherein the light is selected from the group consisting of a blue light, a red light, a green light, and a yellow light (para 0042).
Regarding claim 26. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the method of claim 24, wherein the light is guided by the light guiding element towards an outer area of a retina of the eye (fig. 3-4, para 0009, 0054).
Regarding claim 27. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the method of claim 24, wherein the specific area is a central area of the retina of the eye (Poirrier, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the method of claim 24, wherein the specific area is an inner area of the of the retina of the eye (Poirrier, fig. 2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosero as modified by Poirrier, and further in view of EP1642609 to Klose (previously presented).
Regarding claim 9. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the light source is embedded into a body of the lens.
Klose, from a similar field of endeavor teaches a device having LEDs embedded into the body of the lens (para 0027). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Rosero as modified by Poirrier with the teachings of Klose, because doing so would allow for embedding the LEDs directly into the lens, so as to provide a lower profile frame/arms (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosero as modified by Poirrier, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20100174345 to Ashdown (previously presented).
Regarding claim 12. Rosero as modified by Poirrier renders obvious the light emitting ophthalmic lens of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the light source is comprised of a light emitting semiconductor nanocrystal.
Ashdown, from a similar field of endeavor teaches a light therapy for the eye (para 0001, 0005-0006, 0027-0028) and discloses nanocrystal light emitting semiconductor diodes (para 0023). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Rosero as modified by Poirrier with the teachings of Ashdown to implement any LED device including nanocrystals, to provide the predictable result of designing flexibility for the source.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights