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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 16th, 2024 and December 17th, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2023/004385, filed on February 9th, 2023.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species “improvement or suppression of dermatitis, improvement or suppression of alopecia, improvement of hair condition, improvement or suppression of graying of hair, improvement or suppression of hearing loss, improvement or suppression of vision loss, improvement or enhancement of muscle strength, improvement or suppression of kyphosis, improvement or suppression of pain and/or feeling of discomfort, improvement of autonomic nerve abnormalities, improvement of healthy life expectancy, and obesity control”. The species are independent or distinct because these disease states differ markedly from one another in any limitations associated with the scope. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-13 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: for each treatment of physiological state, the light therapy state of the art with regards to treatment standards for each disease state would need to occur. The species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Christopher Roberge on May 11th, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of “improvement or suppression of alopecia” in claim 4. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 4’s “group consisting of improvement or suppression of dermatitis, … improvement of hair condition, improvement or suppression of graying of hair, improvement or suppression of hearing loss, improvement or suppression of vision loss, improvement or enhancement of muscle strength, improvement or suppression of kyphosis, improvement or suppression of pain and/or feeling of discomfort, improvement of autonomic nerve abnormalities, improvement of healthy life expectancy, and obesity control” is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3’s “or” in line 2 of “a light source which irradiates light of a specific wavelength constantly or at a specific blinking frequency to a living body, and a controller which controls the blinking frequency of the light source” seems to recites a “controller” that will control the blinking while a having a “specific blinking frequency” as an alternative limitation. Appropriately correcting “or” to “and” will show consistency with having the controller as part of the irradiating apparatus.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mental process without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 recites a method for improving physiological state of a subject and therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 13 recite a limitation of “irradiating light of a specific wavelength to the subject/human.” This limitation is nothing more than a subject being exposed to the sun light under the broadest reasonable interpretation. According to MPEP 2106.04(b)(I), “heat of the sun” is considered as natural phenomenon.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 13 do not require any other steps. Therefore, there is no inventive concept in the claim and it is ineligible.
For claims 2, 3, and 12, the limitation of light source being spectacles with a light source recited in claim 12 would encompass limitations of controlling irradiating apparatus having a specific wavelength constantly recited in claims 2 and 3. The limitation of “spectacles with a light source” is nothing more than sun light being exposed to a subject wearing sunglasses. An Official Notice is taken for the concept of a person wearing sunglasses since the practice of wearing sunglasses during sun exposure is a common knowledge and practice that is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
For claim 4, the limitations of improvement of various physiological states are nothing more than intended use and does not add additional steps/limitations.
For claims 5-7, claims only require recited wavelengths to be included but claims do not exclude other wavelengths. Therefore, sun irradiation would still encompass limitations of claims 5-7.
For claims 8-10, claims include irradiating light having no blinking frequency (0 Hz). Therefore, sun irradiation would still encompass limitations of claims 8-10.
For claim 11, limitation of having an irradiation time further limits already stated natural phenomena of a subject being exposed to the sun for a time period. This would still be considered as natural phenomenon.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim and it is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van de Ven et al. (WO2021026218). For the purposes of applying art, (Pat. 12564728) will be used as an equivalent document of WO2021026218 .
Regarding claim 1, Van de Ven teaches a method for improving physiological state of a subject, ([Abstract] “treating central nervous system disorders by administering light to a user”) comprising: irradiating light of a specific wavelength to the subject. ([col. 47, lines 43-44] “specific wavelengths of light can be used to enhance production of various neurotransmitters”)
Regarding claim 2, Van de Ven teaches a method for improving physiological state of a subject, ([Abstract] “treating central nervous system disorders by administering light to a user”) comprising: irradiating light of a specific wavelength to the subject by controlling a light irradiating apparatus, ([col 5, line 30] “sensor(s) configured to control light emission characteristics”) thereby improving physiological state of a subject. ([col. 47, lines 43-44] “specific wavelengths of light can be used to enhance production of various neurotransmitters”)
Regarding claim 3, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 2. Van de Ven also teaches wherein the light irradiating apparatus comprises a light source which irradiates light of a specific wavelength constantly ([col. 4, lines 9-13] “these devices used to administer these treatments typically include… light sources … which emit light at desired wavelengths”), and a controller which controls the blinking frequency of the light source. ([col 36, lines 5-15] “controller to… modify the predetermined light therapy based on… frequency”)
Regarding claim 5, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 1. Van de Ven also teaches wherein the light is violet light. ([col. 21 line 8] “UV light emitter” and [column 45, lines 59-60] “Ultraviolet light (e.g., UV-A light having a peak wavelength in a range of from 350 nm to 395 nm”)
Regarding claim 6, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 1. Van de Ven also teaches wherein the specific wavelength includes a wavelength in a range of 350 nm to 400 nm. ([col. 21 line 8] “UV light emitter” and [column 45, lines 59-60] “Ultraviolet light (e.g., UV-A light having a peak wavelength in a range of from 350 nm to 395 nm”)
Regarding claim 7, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 6. Van de Ven also teaches wherein the specific wavelength includes a wavelength of approximately 380 nm. ([col. 21 line 8] “UV light emitter” and [column 45, lines 59-60] “Ultraviolet light (e.g., UV-A light having a peak wavelength in a range of from 350 nm to 395 nm” where light’s variability at approximately 380nm can reasonably encompass 350-395 nm of light with sufficient specificity).
Regarding claim 8, 9, and 10, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 3. Van de Ven also teaches wherein a frequency in a range of 30 Hz to 75 Hz. ([column 49, lines 28-30] “light energy having a frequency of about 30 Hz to about 50 Hz, and more specifically about 40 Hz, is non-invasively delivered”)
Regarding claim 11, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 3. Van de Ven also teaches wherein irradiation conditions further comprise an irradiation time of the light source. ([col. 5, lines 52-56] “the devices include one or more timers such that the device illuminates… for an “on time” and after such on time elapses, the illumination is turned off”)
Regarding claim 12, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 3. Van de Ven also teaches wherein the light source is a light source installed nearby or in front of face, ([Fig. 10] light near the face of a user) a portable light source, ([col. 31, lines 37] “devices are portable”; see also [col. 7, lines 42] “the device comprises a room light”)
Regarding claim 13, Van de Ven teaches all of the claims of claim 1. Van de Ven also teaches wherein the subject is a human. ([col. 30 lines 53-56] “methods and devices herein include… LED based products that illuminate/radiate and penetrate the human body”)
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stasko et al. (US20210128938).
Regarding claim 1, Stasko teaches a method for improving physiological state of a subject, comprising ([0281] "modulating nitric oxide in living mammalian tissue as disclosed herein may include ... patient improvement"): irradiating light of a specific wavelength to the subject. ([0425] “specific wavelengths of visible light may be harnessed for uniform delivery”)
Regarding claim 4, Stasko teaches all of the claims of claim 1. Stasko also teaches wherein the improvement of physiological state is improvement or suppression of alopecia. ([0353] “light therapy releases nitric oxide, which … provide a therapeutic benefit in terms of reduced (or reversed) hair loss for suffers of androgenic alopecia”)
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (CN100531821) discloses a phototherapeutic mask for the treatment of skin conditions.
Nazarian et al. (US20230062185) discloses a mask for light therapy using layers of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and one or more printed circuit board (PCB) members.
Broeng et al. (US20200269065) discloses a system for light therapy using a light source for the stimulation of disease states.
Odhner et al. (TW202028812) discloses a system for wearable ocular devices containing a highly variable frequency range for light emission, including 380nm light range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST.
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.
/R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights