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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method of receiving first feature/s, determining second feature/s, generating a prediction based on the features, using a machine learning model and the features.
To start off, step 1 is covered as the claims recite a process.
Moving on to step 2A, this is a two-prong analysis. Under prong one, examiner is required to show the abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In this case, examiner points out that the steps of “irradiating one eye” and “performing the irradiation for a daily irradiation time of 2 hours and 30 minutes to 3 hours and 30 minutes per day over 5 to 7 consecutive days” in claim 8 are the abstract ideas directed to a mental process. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be done in the mind other than the recitation of the generic computer component. That is, other than using violet light nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong two, examiner is required to show that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements including: “violet light having a wavelength within a range of 360 to 400 nm” and “pulsed light”. In this case, all of the additional elements recited are being performed using a generic computer function such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05F). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Lastly for step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Examiner states that the claim recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2b of 2019 PEG). In particular the steps of the claim do not recite any additional element that is required for the claim to be performed, moreover the steps of the claim add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements recited.
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) 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0043130 Moore-Ede et al., hereinafter “Moore”, in view of US 2018/0185665 Osterhout et al., hereinafter “Osterhout”.
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses a device for preventing, improving, or preventing a worsening of depression (Abstract and Para 84 and 115; Examiner highly suggests moving this limitation out of the preamble to give it patentable weight, with the term “depression” being on stated in the preamble, therefore not carrying patentable weight, examiner is able to apply any reference that provides the therapy to treat any given disease or disorder), the device comprising: a light source (Figure 1, elements 102, 103, and 104, see also Para 97) configured to irradiate at least one eye of a subject (Para 95, 367; the system is clearly made to irradiate the users eye and therefore affect the circadian rhythm) with violet light having a wavelength within a range of 360 to 400 nm (Para 48-49); and a controller (Figure 3, element 308) configured to control the light source to perform irradiation (Para 28; note any of the limitations after “to perform” are considered intended use and are therefore not needed to be taught by the prior art; examiner high suggests positively reciting this step) for a daily irradiation time of 2 hours and 30 minutes to 3 hours and 30 minutes per day (Para 151) over 5 to 7 consecutive days (Para 151 and 271; this is used as a user’s daily routine no time limit is assigned).
Moore does not disclose pulsed light.
However, Osterhout discloses a device (Figure 1, element 102 and Abstract) that treats a patient (Para 277) and teaches pulsed light (Para 280; this pulsed light is applied in the violet range, see Para 273).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed pulsed light as taught by Osterhout, in the invention of Moore, in order to affect the brain through light stimulation to the eyes (Osterhout; Para 280).
Regarding claim 2, Moore discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Moore does not disclose the violet light is irradiated at blinking frequency of 40 Hz.
However, Osterhout teaches the violet light is irradiated at blinking frequency of 40 Hz (Para 273 and 280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed pulsed light as taught by Osterhout, in the invention of Moore, in order to affect the brain through light stimulation to the eyes (Osterhout; Para 280).
Regarding claim 3, Moore discloses an irradiance of the violet light is within a range of 0.5 to 1000 μW/cm2 (Para 220; Examiner highly recommends moving this limitation into the independent claims).
Regarding claim 4, Moore discloses the violet light is irradiated by changing at least one irradiation condition of the irradiation, the at least one irradiation condition being set by transmission and reception with an isolation controller including mobile terminal (Para 503), the irradiation condition includes at least one of irradiation state, an irradiance, an irradiation time, an irradiation start time, an irradiation end time (Para 160, 194, and 196).
Regarding claim 5, Moore discloses the violet light is irradiated from a light source installed in front of or near a face (Figure 16 shows the lights in front of the face) via eyeglasses with the light source, goggles with the light source, a desk-top source including the light source, or the light source mounted on a mobile terminal (Para 97; device screens).
Regarding claim 8, Moore discloses a method for preventing, improving, or preventing a worsening of depression (Abstract and Para 84 and 115; Examiner highly suggests moving this limitation out of the preamble to give it patentable weight, with the term “depression” being on stated in the preamble, therefore not carrying patentable weight, examiner is able to apply any reference that provides the therapy to treat any given disease or disorder), the method comprising: irradiating at least one eye of a subject (Para 95, 367; the system is clearly made to irradiate the users eye and therefore affect the circadian rhythm) with violet light having a wavelength within a range of 360 to 400 nm (Para 48-49); and performing the irradiation (Para 28) for a daily irradiation time of 2 hours and 30 minutes to 3 hours and 30 minutes per day (Para 151) over 5 to 7 consecutive days (Para 151 and 271; this is used as a user’s daily routine no time limit is assigned).
Moore does not disclose pulsed light.
However, Osterhout discloses a method (Figure 1, element 102 and Abstract) that treats a patient (Para 277) and teaches pulsed light (Para 280; this pulsed light is applied in the violet range, see Para 273).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed pulsed light as taught by Osterhout, in the invention of Moore, in order to affect the brain through light stimulation to the eyes (Osterhout; Para 280).
Regarding claim 9, Moore discloses an irradiance of the violet light is within a range of 0.5 to 1000 μW/cm2 (Para 220).
Regarding claim 10, Moore discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Moore does not disclose the violet light is irradiated at blinking frequency of 40 Hz.
However, Osterhout teaches the violet light is irradiated at blinking frequency of 40 Hz (Para 273 and 280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed pulsed light as taught by Osterhout, in the invention of Moore, in order to affect the brain through light stimulation to the eyes (Osterhout; Para 280).
Regarding claim 11, Moore discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Moore does not disclose the violet light is irradiated at blinking frequency of 40 Hz.
However, Osterhout teaches the violet light is irradiated at blinking frequency of 40 Hz (Para 273 and 280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed pulsed light as taught by Osterhout, in the invention of Moore, in order to affect the brain through light stimulation to the eyes (Osterhout; Para 280).
Regarding claim 12, Moore discloses the controller is configured to change, by transmission and reception with an isolation controller including a mobile terminal (Para 503), at least one of an irradiation state, an irradiance, an irradiation time, an irradiation start time, and an irradiation end time (Para 160, 194, and 196).
Regarding claim 13, Moore discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Moore does not disclose a blinking frequency of the pulsed light is 40 Hz.
However, Osterhout teaches a blinking frequency of the pulsed light is 40 Hz (Para 273 and 280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed pulsed light as taught by Osterhout, in the invention of Moore, in order to affect the brain through light stimulation to the eyes (Osterhout; Para 280).
Regarding claim 14, Moore discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Moore does not disclose a blinking frequency of the pulsed light is 40 Hz.
However, Osterhout teaches a blinking frequency of the pulsed light is 40 Hz (Para 273 and 280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed pulsed light as taught by Osterhout, in the invention of Moore, in order to affect the brain through light stimulation to the eyes (Osterhout; Para 280).
Regarding claim 15, Moore discloses the violet light is irradiated from a light source installed in front of or near a face (Figure 16 shows the lights in front of the face) via eyeglasses with the light source, goggles with the light source, a desk-top source including the light source, or the light source mounted on a mobile terminal (Para 97; device screens).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Examiner notes that the U.S.C. 112 rejections have been overcome in view of the amendments, the Double Patenting Rejection has been overcome in view of the amendments, the Specification objection has been overcome in view of the amendments.
Examiner holds the rejection of claim 8 under U.S.C 101 for the reasons listed above. Examiner highly suggests adding structural limitations to overcome this rejection.
Kindly refer to the U.S.C. 103 rejection above for the rejection of the newly amended limitations and note the examiner comments in the rejection for potential amendments to overcome the rejections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights