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
The previous claim objections and 35 USC § 112 claim rejections have been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s amendments. However, also in response to the applicant’s claim amendments, the examiner has raised 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below. Note: The phrase “equivalent melanopic lux” was not found in the original claims and or original specification. Claim 9 is not allowed as it contains both new 112 rejections.
The arguments directed towards the prior art rejection are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the applicant’s claim amendments. The examiner is now citing Luo to address the new claim limitations as follows:
“Broeng discloses the invention but is silent as to a continuous light source configured for emitting continuous white light, the continuous white light having a relatively high equivalent melanopic lux (EML) state for emitting a high EML light and a relatively low EML state for emitting a low EML light, wherein the continuous light source is configured to transition between the high EML state and the low EML state to deliver a circadian-cycle light therapy concurrently with, and independently of, the pulsed light source emitting the pulsed light to entrain the brainwaves, such that the user perceives substantially constant white light illumination. Luo teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0094], [0103], [0114] to provide continuous light that is independent of the circadian rhythm-adjusting light flashes (e.g. see [0114]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a continuous and a pulsed light together as taught by Luo in the system/method of Broeng, since said modification would provide the predictable results of continuous light that is independent of the circadian rhythm-adjusting light flashes”.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 was originally cancelled and cannot be amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claimed phrase “equivalent melanopic lux” is not in the specification. Thus the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
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.
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 1-14, 16, 22-25, 30, and 32 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 claim(s) contains 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. In particular, the phrase “equivalent melanopic lux” is not found in the originally filed specification or claims. [0057]-[0059] in the originally filed specification (or [0052]-[0054] in the published application) disclose EML but never use the phrases “equivalent” or “lux”. Thus, it is not certain whether the E is for “equivalent” or the L is for “lux”.
Claims 1-14, 16, 22-25, 30, and 32 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.
The phrases “equivalent” or “lux” are not in the originally filed claims or specification, this renders the metes and bounds of the scope unclear.
The terms “relatively high” and “relatively low” in claims 1, 8, 9, and 24 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “relatively high” and “relatively low” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, the phrases are being interpreted as “high” and “low” without the word “relatively”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14, 16, 22-25, 30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0269065 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Broeng”, in view of Luo (Pub. No.: US 2022/0134052 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Broeng discloses a system for delivering light therapy for entraining brainwaves (e.g. see [0200], [0206]), the system comprising: a pulsed light source configured for emitting pulsed light oscillating between first and second states (e.g. see [0013]); wherein said first and second states comprise different intensities of the same light color (e.g. see [0013]), different light colors (e.g. see [0013]), different intensities of different light colors (e.g. see [0013]); and wherein said pulsed light source is configured to minimize a user's visual detection during oscillation between said first and second states (e.g. see [0013], “the experience by a human is constant white light illumination”), wherein minimizing visual detection comprises duty cycle moderation (e.g. see [0013]) and waveform variation (e.g. see [0013]).
Broeng discloses the invention but is silent as to a continuous light source configured for emitting continuous white light, the continuous white light having a relatively high equivalent melanopic lux (EML) state for emitting a high EML light and a relatively low EML state for emitting a low EML light, wherein the continuous light source is configured to transition between the high EML state and the low EML state to deliver a circadian-cycle light therapy concurrently with, and independently of, the pulsed light source emitting the pulsed light to entrain the brainwaves, such that the user perceives substantially constant white light illumination. Luo teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0094], [0103], [0114] to provide continuous light that is independent of the circadian rhythm-adjusting light flashes (e.g. see [0114]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a continuous and a pulsed light together as taught by Luo in the system/method of Broeng, since said modification would provide the predictable results of continuous light that is independent of the circadian rhythm-adjusting light flashes.
Regarding claim 2, Broeng discloses said pulsed light is configured to entrain the following brainwaves: gamma (e.g. see [0200], [0206]-[0207]).
Regarding claim 3, Broeng discloses functionality for delivering an additional light therapy comprising circadian cycle light therapy (e.g. see [0288]-[0289]).
Regarding claim 4, Broeng discloses said pulsed light has an oscillation frequency of between 40 and 200 Hz in integer multiples of 20 Hz (e.g. see [0024], [0242]. Note: 20 Hz, 40 Hz, and 60 Hz are integer multiples of 20 Hz).
Regarding claim 5, Broeng discloses a continuous light source configured for emitting continuous light (e.g. see [0013], “the experience by a human is constant white light illumination”).
Regarding claim 6, Broeng discloses said continuous light is white light (e.g. see [0013], “the experience by a human is constant white light illumination”).
Regarding claim 7, Broeng discloses said white light is modulated to moderate circadian cycles (e.g. see [0288]-[0289]).
Regarding claim 14, Broeng discloses said first and second states define a duty cycle (e.g. see [0236]).
Regarding claim 16, Broeng discloses the duty cycle is no less than 25% and no greater than 75% (e.g. see [0013]).
Regarding claim 22, Broeng discloses pulsed light source is within a lamp (e.g. see figure 1 elements 103-107 and [0184]).
Regarding claim 23, Broeng discloses said pulsed light has a waveform expressed as a Fourier series (e.g. see figure 4A, [0187]. Note: A square wave can be a type of Fourier series) in which at least 5%, or 10%, or 15%, or 20%, or 25%, or 30%, or 35%, or 40%, or 50%, or 60%, or 70% of the power of the waveform is at the desired frequency (e.g. see figure 4A, [0187]. Note: Each of the two light sources are on at least 50% of the time) for brainwave light therapy (BLT) (e.g., 40 Hz for gamma waves) (e.g. see [0005], [0013]. Note: [0005] discloses frequencies of 40 Hz stimulate gamma oscillations in the brain, [0013] discloses using 40 Hz).
Regarding claim 24, Broeng discloses a system for delivering light therapy (e.g. see the rejection for claim 1 above), the system comprising a light source for emitting pulsed light having a frequency of between 40 and 200 Hz in integer multiples of 20 Hz (e.g. see [0024], [0242]. Note: 20 Hz, 40 Hz, and 60 Hz are integer multiples of 20 Hz). Broeng further discloses using multiple light sources simultaneously (e.g. see [0013]) including a continuous light source (see [0160]).
Regarding claim 25, Broeng discloses the pulsed light has oscillating states (e.g. see [0013]), wherein the oscillating states comprise at least a first state and a second state wherein the first and second states are different intensities of the same light color (e.g. see [0013]), different light colors (e.g. see [0013]), or different intensities of different light colors (e.g. see [0013]).
Regarding claim 30, Broeng discloses the first and second states are different intensities of the same light color (e.g. see [0013]).
Regarding claim 32, Broeng discloses the same color light is a perceptually non-white color light that activates only a portion of light receptors of a human eye (e.g. see [0013]).
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeng and Luo, and further in view of Petluri et al. (Pub. No.: WO 2020/097580); hereinafter referred to as “Petluri”.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Broeng and Luo disclose the claimed invention except for said while light has a relatively high equivalent melanopic lux (EML) state for emitting a high EML light, and a relatively low EML state for emitting a low EML light and the continuous light source has a high EML state and a low EML state. Petluri teaches that it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [00261] to provide LED lamps that can provide white light across a range of CCT values while simultaneously achieving high efficiencies, high luminous flux, good color rendering, and acceptable color stability (e.g. see [0014]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such a modification as taught by Petluri in the system/method of Broeng and Luo, since said modification would provide the predictable results of providing LED lamps that can provide white light across a range of CCT values while simultaneously achieving high efficiencies, high luminous flux, good color rendering, and acceptable color stability.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeng and Luo, and further in view of Malchano et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190314641 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Malchano”.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Broeng and Luo disclose the claimed invention except for further comprising a screen, wherein the system is configured to deliver a gaze-based light therapy, and said gaze-based light therapy comprises determining focus area of user gaze, and delivering said pulsed light from a region of said screen based on said focus area and said activity-dependent light therapy comprises identifying an active window on a computer and task being performed, and, based on said task, delivering pulse light in a manner that maximizes the benefit and acceptability, and minimizes side effects as disclosed herein. Malchano teaches that it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0303]-[0304] and [0752]-[0753] to determine whether the external stimuli were effective in entraining the brain of the subject to the particular frequency and in improving the cognitive states or functions of the brain (e.g. see [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such a modification as taught by Malchano in the system/method of Broeng and Luo, since said modification would provide the predictable results of determining whether the external stimuli were effective in entraining the brain of the subject to the particular frequency and in improving the cognitive states or functions of the brain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Winkler (Patent Number: 9,731,092 B2) teaches light source emits continuous light as set forth in figure 1 element 3 column 5 lines 19-40 to provide therapeutic effects both on a psychological level and on a physical level (e.g. see column 2 lines 19-23).
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 PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights