DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/25/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
As for the second IDS also filed on 12/10/2024 labeled as “transmittal letter”, it seems a letter has been filed stating the attachment of an IDS, the IDS attachment to this letter was not received and therefore is not considered.
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 33, 34, and 43 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.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "receiving the pulsed first driving current enables a power density of" in line 2. The term “enables” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner does not understand the meets and bounds of the term “enables” examiner suggests amending.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "where the illuminance" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as “where an illuminance” and suggests amending.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the radiation source receiving the pulsed first driving current is capable of delivering a dosage of" in lines 1-2. The term “capable of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner does not understand the meets and bounds of the term “capable of” examiner suggests amending.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the general lighting arrangement is configured to provide a second driving current different from the first driving current to the light source" in lines 1-2. Claim 27 discloses that “the first driving current” is a drive of the “radiation source” not the “light source”. For this reason the limitation above is confusing, examiner will interpret as "the general lighting arrangement is configured to provide a second driving current different from the first driving current to the radiation source" and suggests amending to clarify.
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.
Claim(s) 27-34, 37-39, 41, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0133504 Malchano et al., hereinafter “Malchano”, in view of US 2018/0124895 Alexander et al., hereinafter “Alexander”, further in view of US 8,760,370 Maxik et al., hereinafter “Maxik”.
Regarding claim 27, Malchano discloses a system capable of emitting light, comprising:
a radiation source (Figure 3A, one of elements 305) operable to emit radiation having a peak emission wavelength in a predetermined spectrum in a range 760-1400nm (Para 248 discloses that the light waves can include one or more of visible and infrared light “infrared (e.g., 750-1000000 nm)” the range is disclosed; also note “operable to emit” is an intended use limitation);
a driver circuit (Figure 1, element 110) operable to drive the radiation source with a pulsed first driving current (Para 246 and 253; also note “operable to drive” is an intended use limitation); and
a light source (Figure 3A, another one of elements 305) operable to emit visible light (Para 248 discloses that the light waves can include one or more of visible and infrared light “infrared (e.g., 750-1000000 nm)” the range is disclosed; also note “operable to emit” is an intended use limitation).
wherein the driver circuit is further operable to modify at least one parameter of the pulsed first driving current in response to an input (Para 288 “The light adjustment module 115 can be designed and constructed to measure or verify an environmental variable (e.g., light intensity, timing, incident light, ambient light, eye lid status, etc.) to adjust a parameter associated with the visual signal, such as a frequency, amplitude, wavelength, intensity pattern or other parameter of the visual signal.”; also note “operable to modify” is an intended use limitation), said input including at least one of:- data from a presence sensor detecting presence of a user, - data from a distance sensor detecting a distance with respect to a user, - time-of-day data (Para 288 “timing”), - ambient brightness data (Para 288; ambient light and light intensity), - season data, and - weather data (Para 689).
Even if Malchano does not disclose a radiation source operable to emit radiation having a peak emission wavelength in a predetermined spectrum in a range 760-1400nm and a light source operable to emit visible light.
Alexander discloses a lighting system (Abstract) and teaches a radiation source (Figure 1, one of elements 112) operable to emit radiation having a peak emission wavelength in a predetermined spectrum in a range 760-1400nm (Para 27; “each light emitter 112 can emit a subset of wavelengths in the visible spectrum or radiation outside the visible spectrum (e.g. invisible light, such as infrared radiation or UV light).”) and a light source operable to emit visible light (Figure 1, another one of elements 112 and Para 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a radiation source and light source emitting different wavelengths as taught by Alexander, in the invention of Malchano, in order to achieve controllable dynamic lighting (Alexander; Para 2 and 27).
Malchano does not disclose visible light at a luminous flux of at least 25 lumens.
However, Maxik discloses a lighting system (Abstract) and teaches visible light at a luminous flux of at least 25 lumens (Col. 7, lines 10-13 disclose a 100 lumens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a luminous flux of at least 25 lumens as taught by Maxik, in the invention of Malchano, in order to produce light with desirable characteristics (Maxik; Col. 1, lines 21-25 and Col. 7, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 28, Malchano discloses said input includes one or more of the ambient brightness data (Para 288), the season data, and the weather data (Para 689), and the driver circuit is operable to automatically increase a pulse frequency of the first driving current when the ambient brightness data indicates low ambient lighting or winter conditions, and decreases the pulse frequency when the ambient brightness data indicates high ambient lighting or summer conditions (Para 288; also note “operable to automatically increase” is an intended use limitation).
Regarding claim 29, Malchano discloses the at least one parameter of the pulsed first driving current includes at least one of: pulse amplitude (Para 288), pulse frequency (Para 288), and duty cycle (Para 292).
Regarding claim 30, Malchano discloses a mobile device (Para 279; “The light source 305 can include a computing device having a display device, such as a smartphone or mobile telecommunications device.”), and the driver circuit includes a data interface operable to receive data from the mobile device (Para 279 and 310, see also Figure 7A, element 730a-n; also note “operable to receive” is an intended use limitation).
Regarding claim 31, Malchano discloses the data from the mobile device includes information regarding how long the user has remained indoors (Claim 30 uses a limitation of intended use “operable to receive data from the mobile device”. This limitation further limits the intended use limitation of claim 31, making it intended use), and wherein the driver circuit is operable to modify the at least one parameter of the pulsed first driving current in response to said data from the mobile device to adjust a delivered dose based on the user's indoor exposure time (The limitations “operable to modify” and “to adjust” are intended use limitations).
Regarding claim 32, Malchano discloses a distance sensor or presence sensor operable to determine a distance between the radiation source and the user (Para 374; “The tablet can use the one or more feedback sensors 605 to determine a distance between the light source 305 and the user.”; also note “operable to determine” is an intended use limitation), wherein the driver circuit dynamically adjusts the at least one parameter of the pulsed first driving current, including pulse amplitude, pulse frequency, or duty cycle, based on the determined distance, to maintain a substantially constant irradiation intensity at the user's location (Para 374 and 379; “NSS 105 can use the distance to adjust one or more parameter of the light pulses, flashes of light or other content emitted via the light source 305 of the tablet 500”, see Para 288 for the light parameters; also note “to maintain a substantially constant irradiation intensity at the user's location” is an intended use limitation).
Regarding claim 33, Malchano discloses a peak emission power of the radiation source receiving the pulsed first driving current enables a power density of 0.4-50 mW/cm2 , measured at a common average distance of between 0.2 and 5 m from the radiation source or at a distance where the illuminance of the lighting arrangement is about 500 Lux (Para 246 and 250; the term “enables” is an intended use limitation, refer to 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 34, Malchano discloses the radiation source receiving the pulsed first driving current (Para 246 and 253) is capable of delivering a dosage of 0.01-5 J/cm2 measured at a common average distance of between 0.2 and 5 m from the radiation source or at a distance where the illuminance of the lighting arrangement is about 500 Lux (A recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to perform that function, therefore this recitation is a functional limitation that fails to further define over the prior art).
Regarding claim 37, the recitation “the pulsed first driving current has a pulsed duration of 0.5-20 ms” further limits an intended use recitation of claim 27, “operable to modify at least one parameter of the pulse first driving current”, and thus, making it intended use.
Regarding claim 38, the recitation “each pulse is split into a plurality of sub-pulses having a pulse duration of less than 100 ns” further limits an intended use recitation of claims 27 and 37, “operable to modify at least one parameter of the pulse first driving current”, and thus, making it intended use.
Regarding claim 39, Malchano discloses the radiation source emitting infrared radiation and the light source emitting visible light are integrated within a single fixture or retrofit lamp, thereby providing general illumination and photobiomodulation radiation simultaneously (See Para 260; a broadband lamp is disclosed or a light source with a plurality of LED’s).
Regarding claim 41, Malchano discloses the light source forms part of a general lighting arrangement (Para 259; “the light source 305 can be […] hung from a ceiling” and Para 260), operable to emit at least 250 lumens (Note that “operable to emit” is an intended use limitation., regardless, see 103 below)
Malchano does not disclose emit at least 250 lumens.
However, Maxik discloses a lighting system (Abstract) and teaches emit at least 250 lumens (Col. 7, lines 10-13 disclose a 250-2,600 lumens are disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a luminous flux of at least 250 lumens as taught by Maxik, in the invention of Malchano, in order to produce light with desirable characteristics (Maxik; Col. 1, lines 21-25 and Col. 7, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 44, Malchano discloses the predetermined spectrum does not include visible spectrum (Para 248; the infrared spectrum does not include the visible spectrum).
Regarding claim 45, Malchano discloses the predetermined spectrum is in the infrared spectrum (Para 248; the range is disclosed in the infrared spectrum).
Malchano does not specifically state a range 800-1100 nm.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the radiation source of Malchano such that the predetermined spectrum is in a range of 800-1100 nm in order to emit invisible light that is directed to a specific neural stimulation treatment (Malchano; Para 4 and 248).
Regarding claim 46, Malchano discloses the predetermined spectrum is in the infrared spectrum (Para 248; the range is disclosed in the infrared spectrum).
Malchano does not specifically state a range 800-870 nm.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have specifically disclosed the given range in the disclosure of Malchano in order to emit invisible light that is directed to a specific neural stimulation treatment (Malchano; Para 4 and 248).
Claim(s) 35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0133504 Malchano et al., hereinafter “Malchano”, in view of US 2018/0124895 Alexander et al., hereinafter “Alexander”, further in view of US 8,760,370 Maxik et al., hereinafter “Maxik”, further in view of US 2007/0219605 Yaroslavsky et al., hereinafter “Yaroslavsky”.
Regarding claim 35, Malchano discloses the radiation source comprises at least one light emitting diode (LED) (Para 260) driven at a current exceeding a nominal DC rating for the LED (Para 621).
Malchano does not disclose the pulsed first driving current has a duty cycle of not greater than 20%.
However, Yaroslavsky discloses a radiation device (Abstract) and teaches the pulsed first driving current has a duty cycle of not greater than 20% (Para 189; discloses a duty cycle of 10%-90% for a wavelength of 800-850 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the duty cycle of Yaroslavsky such that the duty cycle is selected in the range of not greater than 20% (10-20%) in order to treat muscle and joint pain (Yaroslavsky; Para 189).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a duty cycle of 10 % as taught by Yaroslavsky, in the invention of Malchano, in order to treat muscle and joint pain (Yaroslavsky; Para 189).
Regarding claim 40, Malchano discloses all the limitations of claim 27.
Malchano does not disclose a peak emission power of the radiation emitted by the radiation source energized by the pulsed first driving current is at least 25W.
However, Yaroslavsky teaches a peak emission power of the radiation emitted by the radiation source energized by the pulsed first driving current is at least 25W (Para 21, 40-80 Watts are disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a peak emission power as taught by Yaroslavsky, in the invention of Malchano, in order for the system power to provide relatively high levels of input flux (Yaroslavsky; Para 21).
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0133504 Malchano et al., hereinafter “Malchano”, in view of US 2018/0124895 Alexander et al., hereinafter “Alexander”, further in view of US 8,760,370 Maxik et al., hereinafter “Maxik”, further in view of US 5,766,233 Thiberg, hereinafter “Thiberg”.
Regarding claim 36, Malchano discloses all the limitations of claim 27.
Malchano does not disclose the driver circuit is configured to provide a pulse frequency of at least 100Hz.
However, Thiberg discloses a lighting device that emits infrared light (Abstract) and teaches the driver circuit is configured to provide a pulse frequency of at least 100Hz (Col. 3, lines 1-7; a pulse frequency of 702 Hz is delivered for the infrared light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a pulse frequency of at least 100 Hz as taught by Thiberg, in the invention of Malchano, in order to treat a wound or sore (Thiberg; Col. 3, lines 1-16).
Claim(s) 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0133504 Malchano et al., hereinafter “Malchano”, in view of US 2018/0124895 Alexander et al., hereinafter “Alexander”, further in view of US 8,760,370 Maxik et al., hereinafter “Maxik”, further in view of US 2018/0302961 Hagelaar et al., hereinafter “Hagelaar”.
Regarding claim 42, Malchano discloses the light source is operable to emit white light having a color point in a CIE XYZ color space, wherein the color point has a distance less than 10 Standard Deviation Color Matching to a black body line in said color space (Para 260 discloses white light; also note that “operable to emit” is an intended use limitation., regardless, see 103 below.)
Hagelaar discloses white light having a color point in a CIE XYZ color space, wherein the color point has a distance less than 10 Standard Deviation Color Matching to a black body line in said color space (Para 9 and 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a color point in a CIE XYZ color space as taught by Hagelaar, in the invention of Malchano, in order to emit white light of a relatively high correlated color temperature (Hagelaar; Para 60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Examiner has found a variety of reference including US 2018/0133504 Malchano, US 2018/0124895 Alexander, US 8,760,370 Maxik et al., hereinafter “Maxik”, etc. that discloses a general lighting system. Malchano discloses a system capable of emitting light, comprising: a radiation source (Figure 3A, one of elements 305) operable to emit radiation having a peak emission wavelength in a predetermined spectrum in a range 760-1400nm (Para 248) a driver circuit (Figure 1, element 110) a light source (Figure 3A, another one of elements 305) operable to emit visible light (Para 248), wherein the driver circuit is further operable to modify at least one parameter of the pulsed first driving current in response to an input (Para 288), said input including at least one of:- data from a presence sensor detecting presence of a user, - data from a distance sensor detecting a distance with respect to a user, - time-of-day data (Para 288 “timing”), - ambient brightness data (Para 288; ambient light and light intensity), - season data, and - weather data (Para 689). Alexander discloses a similar embodiment. Maxik discloses a lighting system (Abstract) and teaches visible light at a luminous flux of at least 25 lumens (Col. 7, lines 10-13 disclose a 100 lumens).
Examiner has not been able to find a reference that discloses “the general lighting arrangement is configured to provide a second driving current different from the first driving current to the light source, wherein the second driving current is a direct current. or an alternating current, or a pulse-width modulated current having a pulse frequency in a range 20 kHz - 300 kHz” For this reason, claim 43 is objected to as allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached (571) 270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
