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 Interpretation
Applicant’s disclosure provides the following guidance for BRI of the instant claims:
The phrase" source is substantially undetectable by human vision" when used with respect to a flickering or blinking light means that a human illuminated by or observing the illumination cannot see the blinking component of the light and instead perceives the illumination as substantially constant, even where the frequency of the blinking light/light component is below the flicker fusion threshold.
The phrase “reversing Alzheimer’s” in claim 33, is used only to indicate any improvement in at least one symptom: [0168] The terms "treatment," "treating," or "treat" as used herein, refer to actions that produce a desirable effect on the symptoms or pathology of a disease or condition, particularly those that can be effected utilizing the phototherapy devices and phototherapy regimen described herein, and may include, but are not limited to, even minimal changes or improvements in one or more measurable markers of the disease or condition being treated. Treatments also refers to delaying the onset of, retarding or reversing the progress of, reducing the severity of, or alleviating or preventing either the disease or condition to which the term applies, or one or more symptoms of such disease or condition. "Treatment," "treating," or "treat" does not necessarily indicate complete eradication or cure of the disease or condition, or associated symptoms thereof. In one embodiment, treatment comprises improvement of at least one symptom of a disease being treated. The improvement may be partial or complete.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said light source” lacks adequate antecedent basis as it should refer to either the first light source or the second light source.
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities: “the difference in illumination angel” appears to be a typographical error for “illumination angle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 objected to because of the following informalities: “aid method is a method of preventing or delaying…” in line 17 of the claim appears to be a typographical error for “said method is a method of preventing or delaying…” and “(e; and/org; and/or, MCI) in line 15 of the claim further appears to be a typographical error. The claim also refers to an initialism “CSF” which should be further defined in the claim as “cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)”.
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 1-30 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 1, the limitation “a colored first light source that comprises or consists of a blue spectral component” renders the claims indefinite because “comprises” and “consists” have two divergent meanings under BRI. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “comprises”, and the claim also recites “consists” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It’s not clear whether this claim limitation should be interpreted as open or closed claim construction. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, the limitation will be considered open.
Further with respect to claim 31 and antecedent basis, the newly amended limitations refer to the light produced by the first and second light sources as both “illumination produced…” and “light produced…” therefore using both “light” and “illumination” interchangeably in a way that renders the antecedent basis of the light/illumination unclear and inadequate. Applicant should use either illumination or light, and clarify the differences between properties of the first and second light sources, and first and second illuminations/lights. The Examiner further suggests describing the illumination/light from the first light source as “first illumination” or “first light”, and illumination/light from the second light source as “second illumination” or “second light” to further clarify which claimed properties belong to which claimed illumination/light.
Regarding claim 19, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “wherein said first light source provides a luminous intensity ranging from about 10 lm,” and the claim also recites “or from about 25 lm, or from about 50 lm, or from about 100 lm, or from about 500 lm, up to about 10,000 lm, up to about 5,000, or up to about 1000 lm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 20, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “the difference in color temperature…is less than about 30K”, and the claim also recites “the difference in color temperature…ranges from about 5K up to about 10K” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 23, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “the first light source and the second light source emit light in substantially the same direction”, and the claim also recites “the difference in illumination angle between said first light source and said second light source is less than about 30 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 31-37, 40-41, and 45-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patents. No. 11,433,253; 11,813,475; and 12,168,144.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the prior patents are narrower than the instant claims, and therefore anticipate the instant claims.
For the exact claim matching, please see the below table of claims:
Claim (Instant Application)
Claim (U.S. Patent No. 11,433,253)
Claim (U.S. Patent No. 11,813,475)
Claim (U.S. Patent No. 12,168,144)
1
1
1
1
2
-
1
4
3
-
1
5
4
2
1
1
5
3
4
16
6
4
5
17
7
5
-
18
8
6
1
8
9
7
-
7
10
9
-
-
11
1
-
-
12
1
-
-
13
1
-
-
14
10
-
-
15
11
-
-
16
12
-
-
17
13
-
-
18
14
-
8
19
8
-
-
20
15
13
9
21
19
14, 15
10
22
20
1
6
23
1
-
11
24
23
-
12
25
24
-
13
26
25
1
14
27
26
4
15
28
27
5
16
29
28
6
3
30
29
10
15
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) 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 22-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0143934) hereinafter referred to as Tsai; further in view of Malchano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0133431) hereinafter referred to as Malchano.
Regarding claim 1, Tsai teaches a device, said device comprising:
a first light source that produces a light that comprises or consists of a blue spectral component (¶[0225] 473nm light corresponds to blue colored visible light) wherein light comprising said blue spectral component is a blinking light (Table 1, 20 and 40 Hz, ¶[0194] 20-50Hz, and other ranges); and
Tsai does not teach a second light source comprising a blinking light source that produces a light lacking a blue and/or green spectral component or where the blue and/or green spectral component produced by said second light source is smaller than the blue and/or green spectral component of the light produced by said first light source; and where the illumination produced by said second light source supplements the illumination produced by the first light source so that the blinking of said first light source when combined with the light from said second light source is substantially undetectable by human vision.
Attention is brought to the Malchano reference, which teaches at least two light sources (¶[0261]), a second light source comprising a blinking light source that produces a light lacking a blue and/or green spectral component or where the blue and/or green spectral component produced by said second light source is smaller than the blue and/or green spectral component of the light produced by said first light source (¶[0249]); and where illumination produced by the first light source and illumination produced by the second light source has substantially the same luminance (¶[0342] the intensity of the light pulse is automatically balanced against the ambient light and the color of the light pulse), and where the illumination produced by said second colored light source supplements the illumination produced by the first colored light source (Fig. 2C).
Malchano also does not teach that the plurality of lights are flickered so that the blinking of said first colored light source when combined with the light from said second colored light source is substantially undetectable by said subject.
It is noted that upon a review of the Specification filed 7/13/2022, Applicant discloses no criticality to this feature.
Considering the teachings of Malchano, the plurality of light source pulses can overlap, slightly overlap, or be non-overlapping (¶[0271]), a range of timings which encompasses complementary pulses (¶¶[0253-0254]); and the intensity, wavelength, and other parameters are all configurable (¶¶[0255-0257]). Malchano also teaches an assessment module that determines the effectiveness of a stimulation configuration, and shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider optimizing the stimulation ranges of Malchano to be predictable and with a reasonable expectation of success (¶[0608]). Finally, Malchano teaches that the contrast of applied light, i.e. perceptibility of the flicker, is a results-effective variable because lower contrast (¶[0652] contrast ratio lower mitigates adverse side effects) and lower intensity (¶[0498]) applied light has a lower risk of adverse effects (list of adverse effects found in ¶[0366]).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would nevertheless consider configuring the light sources of Tsai as modified to emit complementary light pulses that are substantially undetectable by the subject, to be an obvious modification of the light pulses as taught by Tsai and Malchano, because "where 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).
Regarding claim 2, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the blinking frequency and intensity of said first light source is sufficient to stimulate or to entrain brain waves in a human's brain when the human is exposed to said light source (¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 2.
Tsai further teaches wherein said brain waves comprise gamma oscillations (¶[0009], ¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein: said first light source produces a light that comprises or consists of a blue spectral component (¶[0225] 473nm blue light).
Malchano further teaches said second light source that produces a light lacking a blue spectral component or where the blue spectral component produced by said second light source is smaller than the blue spectral component of the light produced by said first light source (¶[0249] ultra-violet, violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, infrared).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 4.
Tsai further teaches, wherein the blue light comprising said first light source, or the blue spectral component of said first light source, is in the wavelength range from about 440 nm up to about 495 nm (¶[0225] 473nm)
Regarding claim 6, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 5.
Tsai further teaches wherein the blue light comprising said first light source, or the blue spectral component of said first light source has a maximum emission at about 460 nm (¶[0225] 473nm is “about” 460nm).
Regarding claim 8, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the frequency of blinking of said first light source ranges from about 20 Hz up to about 50 Hz (¶[0194])
Malchano further teaches the frequency of blinking of said first and second light source ranges from about 20 Hz up to about 50 Hz (¶[0254]).
Regarding claim 9, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 8.
Tsai further teaches wherein the frequency of blinking of said first light source is about 40 Hz (¶[0194])
Malchano further teaches the frequency of blinking of said first and second light source is about 40 Hz (¶[0254]).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 8.
Tsai further teaches wherein: the duration of the blinks of said first light source ranges from about 5 ms up to about 20 ms (¶[0484] pulse_width is set to 2:1 duty cycle at 50Hz).
Malchano further teaches the duration of the blinks of said second light source ranges from about 5 ms up to about 20 ms (¶[0622]).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Malchano further teaches wherein said device is configured to operate said first light source out of phase with said second light source (¶[0605]).
Regarding claim 12, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 11.
Malchano further teaches wherein the phase difference between said first light source and said second light source ranges from about 90 degrees to about 180 degrees (¶[0605]).
Regarding claim 13, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 12.
Malchano further teaches wherein the phase difference between said first light source and said second light source is about 180 degrees so that when said first light source is on, said second light source is off and vice versa (¶[0605]).
Regarding claim 14, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 11.
Tsai further teaches wherein the duty cycle of said first light source and/or said second light source ranges from about 5% up to about 90% (¶[0484] pulse_width is set to 2:1 duty cycle at 50Hz).
Regarding claim 15, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 14.
Tsai further teaches wherein the duty cycle of said first light source and/or said second light source is about 50% (¶[0484] pulse_width is set to 2:1 duty cycle at 50Hz).
Regarding claim 16, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the ratio of duty cycle of said first light source to said second light source ranges from about 1:2 to about 2:1 (¶[0484] pulse_width is set to 2:1 duty cycle at 50Hz).
Regarding claim 17, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 16.
Malchano further teaches wherein the ratio of duty cycle of said first light source to said second light source is about 1:1 (¶[0112] 50%).
Regarding claim 19, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Neither Tsai nor Malchano discuss luminous flux.
It is noted that upon a review of the Specification filed 11/25/2024, Applicant discloses no criticality to this feature.
Considering the teachings of Malchano, the plurality of light source pulses can overlap, slightly overlap, or be non-overlapping (¶[0271]), a range of timings which encompasses complementary pulses (¶¶[0253-0254]); and the intensity, wavelength, and other parameters are all configurable (¶¶[0255-0257]). Malchano also teaches an assessment module that determines the effectiveness of a stimulation configuration, and shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider optimizing the stimulation ranges of Malchano to be predictable and with a reasonable expectation of success (¶[0608]). Finally, Malchano teaches that the contrast of applied light, i.e. perceptibility of the flicker and difference in intensity, is a results-effective variable because lower contrast (¶[0652] contrast ratio lower mitigates adverse side effects) and lower intensity (¶[0498]) applied light has a lower risk of adverse effects (list of adverse effects found in ¶[0366]).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would nevertheless consider configuring the light sources of Tsai as modified to provide a luminous intensity ranging from about 10 lm up to about 10,000 lm. to be an obvious modification of the light pulses as taught by Tsai and Malchano, because "where 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).
Regarding claim 22, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 11.
Neither Tsai nor Malchano discuss the difference between first and second light sources luminance intensity in terms of lux. wherein the difference in luminance intensity between said first light source and said second light source is less than about 100 lux.
It is noted that upon a review of the Specification filed 11/25/2024, Applicant discloses no criticality to this feature.
Considering the teachings of Malchano, the plurality of light source pulses can overlap, slightly overlap, or be non-overlapping (¶[0271]), a range of timings which encompasses complementary pulses (¶¶[0253-0254]); and the intensity, wavelength, and other parameters are all configurable (¶¶[0255-0257]). Malchano also teaches an assessment module that determines the effectiveness of a stimulation configuration, and shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider optimizing the stimulation ranges of Malchano to be predictable and with a reasonable expectation of success (¶[0608]). Finally, Malchano teaches that the contrast of applied light, i.e. perceptibility of the flicker and difference in intensity, is a results-effective variable because lower contrast (¶[0652] contrast ratio lower mitigates adverse side effects) and lower intensity (¶[0498]) applied light has a lower risk of adverse effects (list of adverse effects found in ¶[0366]).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would nevertheless consider configuring the light sources of Tsai as modified to emit complementary light pulses that are substantially less then 100lux in difference of illumination intensity to be an obvious modification of the light pulses as taught by Tsai and Malchano, because "where 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).
Regarding claim 23, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Malchano further teaches wherein the first light source and the second light source emit light in substantially the same direction, or the difference in illumination angle between said first light source and said second light source is less than about 30 degrees (¶[0056] light sources both within 15 degrees of the fovea of a subject, therefore less than 30 degree angled from each other).
Regarding claim 24, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein said first light source and/or said second light source comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) (¶[0407]).
Regarding claim 25, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 24.
Malchano further teaches wherein the first light source and/or the second light source comprises at least one different LED for each spectral component (¶[0261]).
Regarding claim 26, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Malchano further teaches wherein said device comprises a table lamp or an overhead lamp (¶[0261])
Regarding claim 27, Tsai as modified teaches a method of treating a subject having a neurodegenerative condition selected from the group consisting of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease, said method comprising:
using a device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) to expose said subject to blinking blue light in the wavelength range from about 440 nm up to about 495 nm (¶[0225] 473nm) at a frequency ranging from about 20 Hz up to about 60 Hz (¶[0225] 40 Hz), at an intensity and duration sufficient to mitigate a symptom, or slow or stop the progression of said neurodegenerative condition (¶[0182-0188]).
Regarding claim 28, Tsai as modified teaches the method of claim 27.
Tsai further teaches wherein the blue light comprising said first light source, or the blue spectral component of said first light source has a maximum emission at about 460 nm (¶[0225] 473nm is “about” 460nm).
Regarding claim 29, Tsai as modified teaches the method of claim 27.
Tsai further teaches wherein: said method comprises ameliorating one or more symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, and/or reversing Alzheimer's disease, and/or reducing the rate of progression of Alzheimer's disease… (¶[0182-0188] for brevity this claim is truncated, but Tsai teaches the claimed Markush group).
Regarding claim 27, Tsai as modified teaches a method of treating depression, short-term memory loss, of improving memory, of improving cognition, of improving sleep, and/or of improving athletic performance in a subject, and/or synchronizing a circadian rhythm to local time (¶¶[0182-0188]), said method comprising:
using a device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) to expose said subject to blinking blue light in the wavelength range from about 440 nm up to about 495 nm (¶[0225] 473nm) at a frequency ranging from about 20 Hz up to about 60 Hz (¶[0225] 40 Hz), at an intensity and duration sufficient to mitigate a symptom of depression, or to mitigate short-term memory loss, or to improve memory, or to improve cognition, or to improve sleep, and/or to improve athletic performance in said subject (¶[0182-0188]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Malchano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colbaugh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0158487) hereinafter referred to as Colbaugh.
Regarding claim 7, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 4.
Tsai does not discuss the irradiance per unit area provided by the light source, instead only discussing power of a laser example in a wavelength range from 440 nm up to 500 nm (¶[0225] 1mW at the tip from a 200mW laser source).
Attention is brought to the Colbaugh reference, which teaches a first light source provides irradiance that is larger than 5 mW/nm/m2 in a wavelength range from 440 nm up to 500 nm (5mW/nm/m2 spectral irradiance in this wavelength range converts to 2.2 W/m2-2.5W/m2; see ¶[0033] 1, 10, 100, 1000 W/m2 for example) in a wavelength range from 440 nm up to 500 nm (¶[0007] blue and 410-510nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the irradiance of Tsai as modified to correspond with 5 mW/nm/m2, as taught by Colbaugh, because Colbaugh teaches that this intensity range has been demonstrated to be effective at entrainment through photomodulation (Colbaugh ¶[0032]).
Claim(s) 18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Malchano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisele et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0084614) hereinafter referred to as Eisele.
Regarding claim 18, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Tsai and Malchano do not discuss the color temperature of the disclosed light sources.
Attention is brought to the Eisele reference, which teaches a color temperature of a first light source ranges from about 2700K up to about 3500K; and a color temperature of a second light source ranges from about 2700K up to about 3500K (¶[0038], ¶[0060], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the color temperature of Tsai as modified to use color temperature because modulation of color temperature within this proscribed range allows for more effective entrainment while maintaining user light color preferences (Eisele ¶[0169]).
Regarding claims 20-21, Tsai as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Tsai and Malchano do not discuss the color temperature of the disclosed light sources.
Attention is brought to the Eisele reference, which teaches a color temperature of a first light source ranges from about 2700K up to about 3500K; and a color temperature of a second light source ranges from about 2700K up to about 3500K (¶[0038], ¶[0060], Fig. 2) and that this is an alternative method of referring to a black body locus (Fig. 1-3) which corresponds to the claimed distance (¶[0106]) and to a difference in light source color temperature of less than 30K.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the color temperature of Tsai as modified to use color temperature because modulation of color temperature within this proscribed range allows for more effective entrainment while maintaining user light color preferences (Eisele ¶[0169]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights