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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an emitter capable of emitting visible light,” in claim 1, which corresponds to “LED, laser diode, or xenon flashtube” (see para [0026] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a light detector arranged to detect light from the emitter,” in claim 1, which corresponds to a “photodiode” (see para [0063] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a heating element,” in claims 10, 15, and 19, which corresponds to “a resistor or resistive traces on a printed circuit board” or an “emitter” (see para [0057] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a heater,” in claims 30 and 39, which corresponds to “a resistor or resistive traces on a printed circuit board” or an “emitter” (see para [0057] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-40 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “an indication of visual system function” (line 1) and “an indication of visual system function” (line 10) is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the same indication of visual system function is being referred to or whether these are different ones. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 3, the claim term “an active thermal control system” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, already recites “an active thermal control system.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different active thermal control system is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 4, the claim term “a light detector” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, already recites “a light detector.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different light detector is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 4, the claim term “a temperature sensor” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, already recites “a temperature sensor.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature sensor is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 4, the claim term “a temperature” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, already recites “a temperature.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 5, the claim term “a continuous light emission” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, already recites “a continuous light emission.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different continuous light emission is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 5, the claim term “a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, already recites “a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 6, the claim term “one or more flashes of light” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, already recites “one or more flashes of light.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different one or more flashes of light is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 6, the claim term “a light detector” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, already recites “a light detector.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different light detector is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 6, the claim term “a control circuit that modules a duration of each flash of light based on an output from the light detector obtained during that flash of light” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, already recites “a control circuit that modules a duration of each flash of light based on an output from the light detector obtained during that flash of light.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different control circuit that modules a duration of each flash of light based on an output from the light detector obtained during that flash of light is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a continuous light emission” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a continuous light emission.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different continuous light emission is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “an active thermal control system” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “an active thermal control system.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different active thermal control system is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a light detector” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a light detector.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different light detector is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a temperature sensor” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a temperature sensor.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature sensor is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a temperature” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a temperature.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 10, the claim term “a temperature sensor” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, already recites “a temperature sensor.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature sensor is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 10, the claim term “the shortest distance” (recited twice, lines 3 and 5) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 11, the claim term “a temperature” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, already recites “a temperature.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 12, the claim term “the shortest distance” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 15, the claim term “the temperature variability near the light detector” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 19, the claim term “a temperature sensor” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 19 depends, already recites “a temperature sensor.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature sensor is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 19, the claim term “the shortest distance” (recited thrice, lines 3, 5, and 11) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 19, the claim term “a temperature” (recited twice, lines 7 and 9) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 19 depends, already recites “a temperature.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 20, the claim term “the duration of the light flashes” is ambiguous. Is the scope of this language: (a) the duration of each light flash; or (b) the duration of all the light flashes? The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 22, the claim language “an indication of visual system function” (line 1) and “an indication of visual system function” (line 5) is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the same indication of visual system function is being referred to or whether these are different ones. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 24, the claim term “a detector” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 24 depends, already recites “a detector.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different detector is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 25, the claim term “a threshold” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 25 depends, already recites “a threshold.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different threshold is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 26, the claim term “one or more flashes of light” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 26 depends, already recites “one or more flashes of light.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different flashes of light are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 26, the claim term “a duration” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 26 depends, already recites “a duration.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different duration is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 26, the claim term “a light measurement” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 26 depends, already recites “a light measurement.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different light measurement is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 27, the claim term “a threshold” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 27 depends, already recites “a threshold.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different threshold is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 27, the claim term “a detector” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 27 depends, already recites “a detector.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different detector is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 27, the claim term “a temperature” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 27 depends, already recites “a temperature.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 29, the claim term “the voltage” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 39, the claim term “a temperature” is ambiguous. Claim 22, from which claim 27 depends, already recites “a temperature.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same or a different temperature is being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
Dependent claim(s) 2-21 and 23-40 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim(s) 1 and 22, thus claim(s) 1-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 21-22, 26, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0322495 to Davis et al. (hereinafter “Davis”).
For claim 1, Davis discloses a device providing an indication of visual system function of a patient (Abstract) comprising:
an emitter (106) (Fig. 1) (para [0060]) capable of emitting visible light (para [0060]);
an optical assembly (104) (Fig. 1) (para [0060]) arranged so that light emitted from the emitter reaches an eye of the patient (para [0060]); and
a controller (110) (Fig. 2) (para [0066]) configured to:
modulate a light emission from the emitter to create a light stimulus (para [0066]),
receive and analyze an electrical signal from a visual system of the patient to create an analysis (para [0068]), and
provide an indication of visual system function based on the analysis (para [0068]),
wherein the device is further configured to provide one or more conditions selected from the group consisting of:
the device further comprises an active thermal control system configured to reduce temperature variability near the emitter;
the device further comprises a light detector arranged to detect light from the emitter and a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature near the light detector;
the emitter is capable of providing a continuous light emission and the device further comprises a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller; and
the light stimulus comprises one or more flashes of light (para [0066], [0076]-[0077], [0079]-[0080], and/or [0086]), the device further comprises a light detector (105) (Fig. 1) (para [0100]) arranged to detect light from the emitter (para [0100]), and the device further comprises a control circuit that modulates a duration of each flash of light based on an output from the light detector obtained during that flash of light (para [0066], [0076]-[0077], [0079]-[0080], and/or [0086]).
For claim 2, Davis further discloses wherein the emitter is selected from an LED, a laser diode, or a xenon flashlamp (para [0053]).
For claim 6, Davis further discloses wherein the light stimulus comprises one or more flashes of light (para [0066], [0076]-[0077], [0079]-[0080], and/or [0086]), the device further comprises a light detector (105) (Fig. 1) (para [0100]) arranged to detect light from the emitter (para [0100]), and the device further comprises a control circuit that modulates a duration of each flash of light based on an output from the light detector obtained during that flash of light (para [0066], [0076]-[0077], [0079]-[0080], and/or [0086]).
For claim 21, Davis further discloses wherein the emitter is a xenon flashlamp (para [0053]).
For claim 22, Davis discloses a method for providing an indication of visual system function of a patient (Abstract), comprising:
illuminating an eye of the patient with a light stimulus (para [0066]) from an emitter (106) (Fig. 1) (para [0060]);
receiving and analyzing an electrical signal from the patient to create an analysis;
providing an indication of visual system function based on the analysis (para [0068]); and
further performing one or more of the following steps selected from the group consisting of: controlling a temperature near the emitter, sensing the light stimulus with a detector and sensing a temperature near the detector, limiting a time-averaged light stimulus from exceeding a threshold using two or more independent circuits, and controlling the light stimulus, wherein the light stimulus comprises one or more flashes of light, by modulating a duration of each flash of light based on a light measurement obtained during that flash of light (para [0066], [0076]-[0077], [0079]-[0080], and/or [0086]).
For claim 26, Davis further discloses wherein the light stimulus comprises one or more flashes of light and a duration of each flash of light is modulated based on a light measurement obtained during that flash of light (para [0066], [0076]-[0077], [0079]-[0080], and/or [0086]).
For claim 40, Davis further discloses wherein the emitter is a xenon flashlamp (para [0053]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0116046 to Haeri et al. (hereinafter “Haeri”).
For claim 3, Davis does not expressly disclose wherein the device comprises an active thermal control system configured to reduce temperature variability near the emitter.
However, Haeri teaches wherein the device comprises an active thermal control system configured to reduce temperature variability near the emitter (para [0034]) (also see claim 6).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the device comprises an active thermal control system configured to reduce temperature variability near the emitter, in view of the teachings of Haeri, for the obvious advantage of stable light emission (see para [0034] of Haeri).
For claim 23, Davis does not expressly disclose wherein the temperature near the emitter is controlled.
However, Haeri teaches wherein the temperature near the emitter is controlled (para [0034]) (also see claim 6).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the temperature near the emitter is controlled, in view of the teachings of Haeri, for the obvious advantage of stable light emission (see para [0034] of Haeri).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Haeri, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0012822 to Kosturko et al. (hereinafter “Kosturko”).
For claim 8, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein the active thermal control system uses an electrical property of the emitter to infer its temperature.
However, Kosturko teaches wherein the active thermal control system uses an electrical property of the emitter to infer its temperature (para [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the active thermal control system uses an electrical property of the emitter to infer its temperature, in view of the teachings of Kosturko, for the obvious advantage of being able to gather one from parameter from another parameter without actually having to measure both parameters.
For claim 9, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein the emitter is a light emitting diode (LED) and the electrical property is a voltage across the LED resulting from a current flowing through the LED.
However, Kosturko teaches wherein the emitter is a light emitting diode (LED) and the electrical property is a voltage across the LED resulting from a current flowing through the LED (para [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the emitter is a light emitting diode (LED) and the electrical property is a voltage across the LED resulting from a current flowing through the LED, in view of the teachings of Kosturko, because an LED is a suitable structure to emit light and voltage is a suitable parameter to infer temperature from.
For claim 28, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein an electrical property of the emitter is used to infer its temperature.
However, Kosturko teaches wherein an electrical property of the emitter is used to infer its temperature (para [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein an electrical property of the emitter is used to infer its temperature, in view of the teachings of Kosturko, for the obvious advantage of being able to gather one from parameter from another parameter without actually having to measure both parameters.
For claim 29, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein the emitter is a light emitting diode and the electrical property is the voltage across the LED resulting from a current flowing through the LED.
However, Kosturko teaches wherein the emitter is a light emitting diode and the electrical property is the voltage across the LED resulting from a current flowing through the LED (para [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the emitter is a light emitting diode and the electrical property is the voltage across the LED resulting from a current flowing through the LED, in view of the teachings of Kosturko, because an LED is a suitable structure to emit light and voltage is a suitable parameter to infer temperature from.
Claim(s) 10 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Haeri, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0310893 to Frei et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0180272 to Zheng et al. (hereinafter “Zheng”).
For claim 10, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein the active thermal control system comprises a temperature sensor located such that the shortest distance between the temperature sensor and the emitter is less than 3 cm; and a heating element located such that the shortest distance between the heating element and the emitter is less than 3 cm.
However, Frei teaches wherein the active thermal control system comprises a temperature sensor located such that the shortest distance between the temperature sensor and the emitter is less than 3 cm (para [0028]).
Additionally, Zheng teaches a heating element (7, 71, 72, 74) (Fig. 3) located such that the shortest distance between the heating element and the emitter (5, 511, 512) (Fig. 3) is less than 3 cm (see Fig. 3, which shows that they directly contact and/or abut each other).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the active thermal control system comprises a temperature sensor located such that the shortest distance between the temperature sensor and the emitter is less than 3 cm; and a heating element located such that the shortest distance between the heating element and the emitter is less than 3 cm, in view of the teachings of Frei and Zheng, for the obvious advantage of making the device compact so that space is not wasted.
For claim 30, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein the temperature is controlled using a temperature sensor located within 3 cm of the emitter; and a heater located within 3 cm of the emitter.
However, Frei teaches wherein the temperature is controlled using a temperature sensor located within 3 cm of the emitter (para [0028]).
Additionally, Zheng teaches a heater (7, 71, 72, 74) (Fig. 3) located within 3 cm of the emitter (5, 511, 512) (see Fig. 3, which shows that they directly contact and/or abut each other).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the temperature is controlled using a temperature sensor located within 3 cm of the emitter; and a heater located within 3 cm of the emitter, in view of the teachings of Frei and Zheng, for the obvious advantage of making the device compact so that space is not wasted.
Claim(s) 4 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0067086 to Tedford et al. (hereinafter “Tedford”).
For claim 4, Davis further discloses a light detector arranged to detect light from the emitter (para [0100]).
David does not expressly disclose a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature near the light detector.
However, Tedford teaches a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature near the light detector (para [0097] and [0106]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis to include a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature near the light detector, in view of the teachings of Tedford, for the obvious advantage of utilizing parameters as feedback to optimize light delivery.
For claim 24, Davis further discloses wherein a detector (105) (Fig. 1) (para [0100]) is used to sense the light stimulus (para [0100]).
Davis does not expressly disclose a temperature near the detector is measured.
However, Tedford teaches a temperature near the detector is measured (para [0097] and [0106]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis to include a temperature near the detector is measured, in view of the teachings of Tedford, for the obvious advantage of utilizing parameters as feedback to optimize light delivery.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Tedford, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0236642 to Timans.
For claim 12, Davis and Tedford do not expressly disclose wherein the temperature sensor is located such that the shortest distance between the temperature sensor and the light detector is less than 3 cm.
However, Timans teaches wherein the temperature sensor is located such that the distance between the temperature sensor and the light detector should be no greater than about 5 cm (para [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the temperature sensor is located such that the shortest distance between the temperature sensor and the light detector is less than 3 cm, in view of the teachings of Timans, for the obvious advantage of making the device compact so that space is not wasted. Also see MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 13, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein the controller uses a measurement from the light detector to adjust the light emission (see para [0097] and [0106] of Tedford).
For claim 14, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein the controller uses a measurement from the temperature sensor to adjust the light emission (see para [0097] and [0106] of Tedford).
For claim 15, Davis does not expressly disclose a heating element and a control circuit configured to reduce the temperature variability near the light detector.
However, Tedford teaches a heating element and a control circuit configured to reduce the temperature variability near the light detector (para [0097]) (also see para [0106]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis to include a heating element and a control circuit configured to reduce the temperature variability near the light detector, in view of the teachings of Tedford, for the obvious advantage of maintain “the skin or eyelid temperature below a predetermined level” (see para [0097] of Tedford).
For claim 32, Davis and Tedford do not expressly disclose wherein the temperature measured is within 3 cm of the detector.
However, Timans teaches wherein the temperature measured should be no greater than about 5 cm (para [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the temperature measured is within 3 cm of the detector, in view of the teachings of Timans, for the obvious advantage of making the device compact so that space is not wasted. Also see MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 33, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein a light emitted from the emitter is adjusted based on an output of the detector (see para [0097] and [0106] of Tedford).
For claim 34, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein the light emitted is adjusted based on the temperature measurement (see para [0097] and [0106] of Tedford).
For claim 35, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein the temperature is controlled near the emitter (para [0097]) (also see para [0106]).
Claim(s) 5, 16, 18, 25, 36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of DE 43 01 483 to Sembritzki.
For claim 5, Davis does not expressly disclose wherein the emitter is capable of providing a continuous light emission and the device further comprises a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller.
However, Sembritzki teaches wherein the emitter is capable of providing a continuous light emission and the device further comprises a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller (col. 3, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the emitter is capable of providing a continuous light emission and the device further comprises a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller, in view of the teachings of Sembritzki, for the obvious advantage of allowing very small signals to be extracted from physiological noise (see col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
For claim 16, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein the circuit limits the time-averaged light from the emitter so as to prevent the device from generating a potential light hazard (col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
For claim 18, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein the circuit does not contain any programmable components (see Fig. 3 of Sembritzki).
For claim 25, Davis does not expressly disclose wherein the time-averaged light stimulus is limited from exceeding a threshold using two or more independent circuits.
However, Sembritzki teaches wherein the time-averaged light stimulus is limited from exceeding a threshold using two or more independent circuits (col. 3, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the time-averaged light stimulus is limited from exceeding a threshold using two or more independent circuits, in view of the teachings of Sembritzki, for the obvious advantage of allowing very small signals to be extracted from physiological noise (see col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
For claim 36, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein the time-averaged light stimulus is limited so as to prevent a potential light hazard from being generated (col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
For claim 38, Davis, as modified, further discloses wherein at least one of the independent circuits does not contain any programmable components (see Fig. 3 of Sembritzki).
Claim(s) 7 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Sembritzki, Haeri, and Tedford.
For claim 7, Davis further discloses a light detector (105) (Fig. 1) (para [0100]) arranged to detect light from the emitter (para [0100])
Davis does not expressly disclose wherein the emitter is capable of providing a continuous light emission and the device further comprises a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller.
However, Sembritzki teaches wherein the emitter is capable of providing a continuous light emission and the device further comprises a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller (col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the emitter is capable of providing a continuous light emission and the device further comprises a circuit that limits a time-averaged light from the emitter in a fashion that is independent from the controller, in view of the teachings of Sembritzki, for the obvious advantage of allowing very small signals to be extracted from physiological noise (see col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
Davis and Sembritzki do not expressly disclose the device further comprises: an active thermal control system configured to reduce temperature variability near the emitter.
However, Haeri teaches wherein the device comprises an active thermal control system configured to reduce temperature variability near the emitter (para [0034]) (also see claim 6).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the device comprises an active thermal control system configured to reduce temperature variability near the emitter, in view of the teachings of Haeri, for the obvious advantage of stable light emission (see para [0034] of Haeri).
Davis, Sembritzki, and Haeri do not expressly disclose a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature near the light detector.
However, Tedford teaches a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature near the light detector (para [0097] and [0106]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis to include a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature near the light detector, in view of the teachings of Tedford, for the obvious advantage of utilizing parameters as feedback to optimize light delivery.
For claim 27, Davis further discloses wherein a detector (105) (Fig. 1) (para [0100]) is used to sense the light stimulus (para [0100]).
Davis does not expressly disclose wherein the time-averaged light stimulus is limited from exceeding a threshold using two or more independent circuits.
However, Sembritzki teaches wherein the time-averaged light stimulus is limited from exceeding a threshold using two or more independent circuits (col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the time-averaged light stimulus is limited from exceeding a threshold using two or more independent circuits, in view of the teachings of Sembritzki, for the obvious advantage of allowing very small signals to be extracted from physiological noise (see col. 3, lines 35-39 of Sembritzki).
Davis and Sembritzki do not expressly disclose wherein the temperature near the emitter is controlled.
However, Haeri teaches wherein the temperature near the emitter is controlled (para [0034]) (also see claim 6).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the temperature near the emitter is controlled, in view of the teachings of Haeri, for the obvious advantage of stable light emission (see para [0034] of Haeri).
Davis, Sembritzki, and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein a temperature near the detector is measured.
However, Tedford teaches wherein a temperature near the detector is measured (para [0097] and [0106]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein a temperature near the detector is measured, in view of the teachings of Tedford, for the obvious advantage of utilizing parameters as feedback to optimize light delivery.
Claim(s) 11 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Haeri, and further in view of U.S. 025/0007241 to Lavon et al. (hereinafter “Lavon”) (Examiner’s Note: Lavon claiming priority to IL291729 filed 3/27/22, which describes the relied upon subject matter in the rejection).
For claim 11, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein the active thermal control system is configured to maintain a temperature near the emitter to a value above 25 °C.
However, Lavon teaches wherein the active thermal control system is configured to maintain a temperature near the emitter to a value above 25 °C (para [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the active thermal control system is configured to maintain a temperature near the emitter to a value above 25 °C, in view of the teachings of Lavon, for the obvious advantage of “improv[ing] energy consumption efficiency, while still enabling fast enough achievement of desired operation temperature” (see para [0043] of Lavon).
For claim 31, Davis and Haeri do not expressly disclose wherein the temperature is controlled to a value above 25 °C.
However, Lavon teaches wherein the temperature is controlled to a value above 25 °C (para [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis wherein the temperature is controlled to a value above 25 °C, in view of the teachings of Lavon, for the obvious advantage of “improv[ing] energy consumption efficiency, while still enabling fast enough achievement of desired operation temperature” (see para [0043] of Lavon).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0033447 to Worms et al. (hereinafter “Worms”).
For claim 20, Davis further discloses wherein the control circuit comprises a digital to analog converter (150) (Fig. 2) (para [0068]).
Davis does not expressly disclose an integrator circuit, and a comparator circuit, wherein: the controller is configured to set an analog setpoint using the digital to analog converter; the output from the light detector is integrated using the integrator circuit to generate a flash energy signal; the comparator circuit is configured to compare the analog setpoint with the flash energy signal; and an output from the comparator circuit is used to stop the light emission, thereby modulating the duration of the light flashes.
However, Worms teaches an integrator circuit (“integrator,” para [0009]), and a comparator circuit (“comparator,” para [0013]), wherein: the controller is configured to set an analog setpoint using the digital to analog converter (para [0052]-[0054]); the output from the light detector is integrated using the integrator circuit to generate a flash energy signal (para [0009], [0042], and [0053]); the comparator circuit is configured to compare the analog setpoint with the flash energy signal (para [0044], [0046], and [0052]); and an output from the comparator circuit is used to stop the light emission (para [0013], [0042], and [0046]), thereby modulating the duration of the light flashes (para [0013], [0042], and [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davis to include an integrator circuit, and a comparator circuit, wherein: the controller is configured to set an analog setpoint using the digital to analog converter; the output from the light detector is integrated using the integrator circuit to generate a flash energy signal; the comparator circuit is configured to compare the analog setpoint with the flash energy signal; and an output from the comparator circuit is used to stop the light emission, thereby modulating the duration of the light flashes, in view of the teachings of Worms, for the obvious avoid injuries by limiting the values of the light flashes (see para [0003] of Worms).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17, 19, 37, and 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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 Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights