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
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the combination of references do not disclose the arrangement of the bridging component , wherein only one lower lateral portion is provided per eye. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. However, Zheng teaches the front frame to include the bridging component wherein only one lower lateral portion is provided per eye. See fig 1.
It is noted that the applicant appears to be looking at the House reference for the bridging and lateral portion limitations. House reference is only relied upon to show that it is known for glasses to include a “hinge”. See detailed rejection below.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220054854 to Zheng in view of 5486880 to House.
Regarding claim 1. Zheng discloses a wearable light therapy device for administering light into the eyes of a wearer (para 0005-0007), the light therapy device comprising a pair of side supporting arms (para 0007, 0036, “pair of glasses legs 5” fig. 1-2), with a bridging component therebetween (para 0007, 0036 “front frame 1”, fig. 1-2), wherein each supporting arm comprises a free end and a hinged end (para 0007, 0036 “a pair of glasses legs 5 pivotally connected to a corresponding transverse outer end of the front frame.”, fig. 1-2), the free end being for mounting upon a respective ear of a wearer, (para 0007, 0036, fig. 1-2); wherein the bridging component comprises a raised nose portion configured between lower opposed lateral portions (para 0007, 0036, 0040 fig. 1), each lateral portion having at least one light aperture for directing light from at least one light source into the eyes of a wearer (para 0040 “LED lamp group is arranged in the first mounting cavity 10”), the nose portion being mountable upon the nose of a wearer during use such that the lateral portions are below the eyes of the wearer (fig. 1, para 0016; It is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding what it considers to be “below” the eyes of the wearer. Since “below” is a relative term, depending on the angle of the face, such is considered to be met.) wherein the bridging component comprises only one lateral portion per eye and each of the lateral portions is configured to be below one eye of the wearer (see fig. 1; it is noted that the front frame only includes one lateral portion, with a lens sitting on the lateral portion. The claim does not provide any details which would prevent the lateral portions from supporting a lens).
Zheng teaches the glasses legs to pivotally connect to a corresponding transverse outer end of the front frame (abstract, para 0036, etc.) but fails to explicitly disclose the ends being “hinged”.
House, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the arms to be attached to the device via hinges to allow the arms to move privately (Col 3, lns 25-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng with the teachings of House to provide the predictable result of pivotally connecting the arms with the frame of the eyewear.
Regarding claim 2. Zheng discloses a wearable light therapy device (para 0007) for use in the management of circadian rhythm disorders, including sleep onset insomnia and early morning awakening insomnia, jet-lag and shift work fatigue (MPEP 2111.02, the preamble is not given any patentable weight as it is understood to be mere statements of purpose or use - See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”), the light therapy device comprising a pair of side supporting arms with a bridging component therebetween, wherein each supporting arm comprises a free end and a hinged end, the free end being for mounting upon a respective ear of a wearer (para 0007, 0036, fig. 1-2); wherein the bridging component comprises a raised nose portion configured between lower opposed lateral portions (para 0007, 0036, 0040 fig. 1), each lateral portion having at least one light aperture for directing light from at least one light source into the eyes of a wearer (para 0040), the nose portion being mountable upon the nose of a wearer during use such that the lateral portions are below the eyes of the wearer (fig. 1, para 0016; It is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding what it considers to be “below” the eyes of the wearer. Since “below” is a relative term, depending on the angle of the face, such is considered to be met.).
wherein the bridging component comprises only one lateral portion per eye and each of the lateral portions is configured to be below one eye of the wearer (see fig. 1; it is noted that the front frame only includes one lateral portion, with a lens sitting on the lateral portion. The claim does not provide any details which would prevent the lateral portions from supporting a lens).
Zheng teaches the glasses legs to pivotally connect to a corresponding transverse outer end of the front frame (abstract, para 0036, etc.) but fails to explicitly disclose the ends being “hinged”.
House, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the arms to be attached to the device via hinges to allow the arms to move privately (Col 3, lns 25-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng with the teachings of House to provide the predictable result of pivotally connecting the arms with the frame of the eyewear.
Regarding claim 4. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, wherein the supporting arms and the bridging component together form a single member that will lie across a wearer’s face in use, supported on the wearer’s ears and nose, with the lateral portions of the bridging component below the eyes of the wearer (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, wherein the nose portion is an inverted U-shaped portion configured so as to fit snugly over the bridge of the nose of a wearer, with the lateral portions extending laterally away from free ends of arms of the inverted U (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 5, wherein the raised nose portion is sized and to be integrally formed with the lateral portions of the bridging component as a single continuous member (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, wherein the light sources are LEDs mounted within each lateral portion behind a light aperture, each behind a respective light aperture, each light aperture being configured for directing light from its LED into an eye of the wearer (para 0040).
Regarding claim 10. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, wherein a vertical distance from the lateral portions to the top of the nose portion will at least be such that the lateral portions, in use, will be generally below the user’s eyes (fig. 1, para 0016).
Regarding claim 13. Zheng discloses a method of managing circadian rhythm disorders, including sleep onset insomnia and early morning awakening insomnia, jet-lag and shift work fatigue (MPEP 2111.02, the preamble is not given any patentable weight as it is understood to be mere statements of purpose or use - See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”), the method including: placing a light therapy device on the face of a wearer (fig. 1), the light therapy device comprising a pair of side supporting arms with a bridging component therebetween, wherein each supporting arm comprises a free end and a hinged end, the free end being for mounting upon a respective ear of the wearer, (para 0007, 0036, fig. 1-2), the bridging component comprising a raised nose portion configured between lower opposed lateral portions (fig. 1), each lateral portion having at least one light aperture for directing light from at least one light source into the eyes of the wearer (para 0007, 0036, 0040 fig. 1), the nose portion being mountable upon the nose of the wearer during use such that the lateral portions are generally below the eyes of the wearer (fig. 1, para 0016; It is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding what it considers to be “below” the eyes of the wearer. Since “below” is a relative term, depending on the angle of the face, such is considered to be met.); and administering light from the light apertures into the eyes of the wearer (para 0007, 0036).
wherein the bridging component comprises only one lateral portion per eye and each of the lateral portions is configured to be below one eye of the wearer (see fig. 1; it is noted that the front frame only includes one lateral portion, with a lens sitting on the lateral portion. The claim does not provide any details which would prevent the lateral portions from supporting a lens).
Zheng teaches the glasses legs to pivotally connect to a corresponding transverse outer end of the front frame (abstract, para 0036, etc.) but fails to explicitly disclose the ends being “hinged”.
House, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the arms to be attached to the device via hinges to allow the arms to move privately (Col 3, lns 25-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng with the teachings of House to provide the predictable result of pivotally connecting the arms with the frame of the eyewear.
Regarding claim 16. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein a vertical distance from the lateral portions to the top of the nose portion will at least be such that the lateral portions, in use, will be generally below the wearer’s eyes (fig. 1, claim 10).
Regarding claim 17. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the method of claim 16, wherein, with the light apertures of the lateral portions oriented to project generally upwardly, but inclined towards the eyes of the wearer, light projected into the wearer’s eyes is projected from generally below the wearer’s eyes, at an angle into the eyes of the wearer (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18. (New) Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, wherein the lateral portion and the supporting arm are coplanar in a horizontal plane (figs 1-2; at least partially are coplanar; furthermore, the court has held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)).
Regarding claim 19. (New) Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, wherein, during use, the supporting arm extends perpendicular to the lateral portion in the same horizontal plane with no offset therebetween (figs 1-2 in combination; furthermore, the court has held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as modified by House, and further in view of US Pat Pub No 20200026101 to Rosero et al. (hereinafter “Rosero”).
Regarding claim 3. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the device does not include eyeglass lenses or an eyeglass lens frame.
It is noted that the claim as written states that the device does not include lenses. However, the claim does not disclose details of the structure that would prohibit the device from receiving lenses or lens frames.
Rosero from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to provide an eyewear device for providing therapeutical benefits wherein an optional lens layer could be incorporated for a user requiring prescription glasses (para 0056), while otherwise, a lens is not provided (para 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng as modified by House with the teachings of Rosero to provide the predictable result of providing or removing lens as required.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as modified by House, and further in view of US Pat No. 5777714 to Conway.
Regarding claim 7. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the nose portion includes mounting regions for nose pads that assist with fitting the device snugly to the nose of a wearer, the nose pads preferably being screw-in, push-in, clip-on or moulded in-situ nose pads, and being either fixed, removable or adjustable.
Conway, teaches an eyewear having a pair of screws passed through each of the nose pads (abstract, col 1, lns 45-67, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng as modified by House with the teachings of Conway to provide the predictable result of placing nose pads on the device.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as modified by House, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20120215291 to Pugh et al. (hereinafter “Pugh”).
Regarding claim 9. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein each light aperture includes a diffusive window through which light passes before entering the wearer’s eyes to dull the intensity of the light.
Pugh, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known for the light scattering area to include diffractive properties to diffuse light as desired (para 0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng as modified by House with the teachings of Pugh to provide the predictable result of diffusing light.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as modified by House, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20060136018 to Lack et al. (hereinafter “Lack”).
Regarding claim 11. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more light sources emit green light at wavelengths in the range of 475nm to 525nm.
Lack, from a similar field of endeavor teaches administering light to effect re-timing of the human body clock including at least two light emitting diodes having an emission wavelength in the range 450 nm to 530 nm (para 0008); "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng as modified by House with the teachings of Lack to provide the predictable result of improving re-timing the human body.
Regarding claim 12. Zheng as modified by House and Lack renders obvious the device of claim 11, wherein the one or more light sources emit green light at wavelengths in the range of 490nm to 510nm (Lack, para 0008).
Regarding claim 14. Zheng as modified by House renders obvious the method of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more light sources emit green light at wavelengths in the range of 475nm to 525nm.
Lack, from a similar field of endeavor teaches administering light to effect re-timing of the human body clock including at least two light emitting diodes having an emission wavelength in the range 450 nm to 530 nm (para 0008) ); "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zheng as modified by House with the teachings of Lack to provide the predictable result of improving re-timing the human body.
Regarding claim 15. Zheng as modified by House and Lack renders obvious the method of claim 14, wherein the one or more light sources emit green light at wavelengths in the range of 490nm to 510nm (Lack, para 0008).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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 S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights