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 Objections
Claims 8-11, 16, 23, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 8, “said while light” should be “said white light”. In claims 8-11, the phrase EML should first be spelled out the first time it is introduced. Claims 10, 15, 17-21, 26-29, 31, 33, and 34, which have been canceled, should be presented with no texts as required by 37 CFR 1.121(c)(4). In claim 23, the phrase “BLT” should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 12, 16, and 32 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases within parentheses render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, phrases within the parentheses have been interpreted as optional limitations.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the screen" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16 and 32 are indefinite for depending from canceled claims. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the scope is unclear. For the purpose of examination, claims 16 and 32 have been interpreted to depend from claims 14 and 25, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14, 16, 22-25, 30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broeng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0269065 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Broeng”.
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]), waveform variation (e.g. see [0013]).
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 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, 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 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) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeng in view of Petluri et al. (Pub. No.: WO 2020/097580); hereinafter referred to as “Petluri”.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Broeng discloses the claimed invention except for said while light has a relatively high 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, 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 in view of Malchano et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190314641 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Malchano”.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Broeng discloses the claimed invention except for said gaze-based light therapy comprises determining focus area of user gaze, and delivering said pulsed light from a region of the 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, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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).
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
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792