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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are currently pending and under consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 2B references the transceiver as reference number 260, while page 14, [0030] of the specification references the time reference device as reference number 260 and page 15, [0031] of the specification references the transceiver as reference number 262
Fig. 2B references the light as reference number 262, while page 15, [0031] of the specification references the transceiver as reference number 262 and page 15, [0032] of the specification references the lamp (not referenced as the light) as reference number 264
Fig. 4 references the cache as reference number 425, while page 22, [0068] of the specification references the cache as reference number 422 and page 24, [0097] of the specification references the cache memory as reference number 425
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: speaker, reference number 266 on page 13, [0024] and cache, reference number 422 on page 22, [0068] of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5, 10, and 15 recite the limitation "a user" in line 1 of the claims. Applciant has prviosuly cited a user in the independent claims. It is unclear if Applciant is referring to this rpeivously recited user or if Applicant is intending to recite a different user. The claims, as best understood by the Examiner, appears to be referring to the same user. It is recommended the Applicant amends this limitation to recite “the user”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-15 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (US 20200289321 A1, published 09/17/2020).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Luo discloses a method comprising (“systems and methods for treating and preventing circadian rhythm disorders” [0052]):
receiving, at a computing device (“sensors may have an interface for attaching to a computing device” [0076]), user data specifying user parameters (“detecting the baseline of relevant physiological parameters” [0102]) and user sleep, health and wellness goals (“circadian rhythm treatment system can be used…anytime when the user would like to improve sleep through optimizing circadian rhythms” [0090]);
creating, based on the user data, a light algorithm associated with the user (“parameter changes can be captured by sensors in the system, used independently or in combination, to help inform and adjust the light program” [0063]);
causing an edge device connected to the centralized server to operate according to the created light algorithm (“software may be located in a light-emitting device (e.g., the sleep mask or a lamp in a bedroom)” [0072]);
receiving, at the computing device, sensor input from the edge device (“the circadian rhythm treatment apparatus may interface with and/or include a sleep mask that includes sensors, which may detect the user's current circadian phase and/or sleep stages and determine a treatment and/or adjustments to a treatment” [0076]); and
adjusting operation of the edge device based on the received sensor input (“light parameters may be set and adjusted by the manufacture and/or the user based on user input and/or data captured by the sensors” [0065]).
Further regarding claims 6 and 11, Luo further discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media and a system (respectively) (“memory system may include one or more machine-readable mediums…one example of a machine-readable medium is a computer-readable medium… memory system may store machine instructions for implementing the application” [0139]) comprising instructions which are executed by one or more hardware processors (“device may include…processor system” [0135]) to cause a performance of operations.
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 12, Luo discloses
creating, based on the user data, a user schedule; and
transmitting the user schedule to a user device (“Fig. 13 is a screenshot of an example of Schedule page (from the mobile application)…night shift option (e.g., schedule night shift link) may suggest a user's sleep schedule and a circadian adjusting program based on night shifts” [0153]).
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, Luo discloses the user data comprises one or more of the following:
user parameter data specifying one or more parameters associated with the user (“detecting the baseline of relevant physiological parameters, whether the user's eyes are closed, the user's head and body movements, the user's heart rate, and/or breathing pattern” [0102]); and
user goal data specifying one or more user goals (“circadian rhythm treatment system can be used…anytime when the user would like to improve sleep through optimizing circadian rhythms” [0090]).
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 14, Luo discloses the sensor input comprises one or more of the following:
image data from a camera connected to the edge device (“a camera in the mask may use images taken during the light flashes to determine eye movements” [0063]); and
audio data from a microphone connected to the edge device (“one or more of the sensors of the circadian rhythm treatment apparatus may include a microphone, which may be located in the sleep mask to monitor sleep through user's breathing patterns” [0077]).
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, Luo discloses the sensor data comprises data indicating that a user is awake (“eye movement are important for distinguishing between awake, nonREM and REM sleeps. Eye movements may be detected by cameras” [0063]).
Regarding claim 22, Luo discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions (“memory system may include one or more machine-readable mediums…one example of a machine-readable medium is a computer-readable medium… memory system may store machine instructions for implementing the application” [0139]) which, when executed by one or more hardware processors (“device may include…processor system” [0135]), causes performance of operations comprising:
receiving user data associated with a user (“detecting the baseline of relevant physiological parameters” [0102]); receiving ambient data from one or more of a camera or a microphone (“a camera in the mask may use images…one or more of the sensors of the circadian rhythm treatment apparatus may include a microphone” [0063] & [0077]), wherein the received ambient data is associated with the user (“the circadian rhythm treatment apparatus may interface with and/or include a sleep mask that includes sensors, which may detect the user's current circadian phase…” [0076]); processing the user data and the ambient data to create a light diet (“parameter changes can be captured by sensors in the system, used independently or in combination, to help inform and adjust the light program” [0063]); and controlling a light source based on the received light diet (“light parameters may be set and adjusted by the manufacture and/or the user based on user input and/or data captured by the sensors” [0065]).
Regarding claim 23, Luo discloses the light diet specifies one or more of:
an intensity of light to be emitted by the light source (“system may also suggest or may provide the options to choose different intensity of the flashes” [0068]), or a range of wavelength of light to be emitted by the light source (“manufacture may set the wavelength of the light or the user may be given a setting for choosing a wavelength of light from wavelength 380 to 750 nm” [0065]).
Regarding claim 24, Luo discloses processing the user data and the ambient data comprises supplying at least a portion of one or more of the user data and the ambient data as inputs to a machine learning model, and wherein the machine learning model provides the light diet as an output (“system may store a history of heart rate data, breathing data, brainwave data to establish a base line heart rate, brainwave patterns and breathing patterns, and learn from the data collected by the sensors through, for example, machine learning…by collecting these physiological parameters throughout sleep, the system may detect nocturnal awakenings and/or determine which stage of sleep the user is in, and adjust the light programs accordingly” [0063]).
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 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.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Moore-Ede et. al, (US 20210290973 A1, published 09/23/2021, hereinafter known as Moore-Ede).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Lou discloses a therapeutic lighting, sensing, and software system (“system may include software, hardware (e.g., LEDs, electronics, and sensors), a light source” [0051] & [0053]) comprising:
a camera (“a camera in the mask may use images taken during the light flashes to determine eye movements” [0063]);
a microphone (“one or more of the sensors of the circadian rhythm treatment apparatus may include a microphone, which may be located in the sleep mask” [0077]);
a light source (“circadian rhythm treatment apparatus may contain one or more LEDs, other light sources” [0127]);
a computing device in signal communication with the camera and the microphone (“sensors may have an interface for attaching to a computing device” [0076]), the computing device being configured to control at least an intensity of light emitted by the light source based on input from one or more of the camera or the microphone (“while a user is sleeping, if during the course of a flash it is determined that the user's eyes are open, the intensity of the next flash may be lowered to an intensity appropriate for when the user's eyes are open” [0072]); and
a machine learning computing device applying artificial intelligence (AI) including machine learning to analyze at least one of user data and device data in order to gain usage and effectiveness insights and create predictions relating to future usage and effectiveness (“system may store a history of heart rate data, breathing data, brainwave data to establish a base line heart rate, brainwave patterns and breathing patterns, and learn from the data collected by the sensors through, for example, machine learning…by collecting these physiological parameters throughout sleep, the system may detect nocturnal awakenings and/or determine which stage of sleep the user is in, and adjust the light programs accordingly” [0063]).
Luo does not disclose a light filtering enclosure surrounding at least the light source, the light filtering enclosure configured to restrict light emissions that would trigger a melanopic reaction in humans.
However, Moore-Ede teaches improved lighting in relation to a novel definition of an optimum relative circadian spectral sensitivity distribution (Abstract). This optimized nighttime circadian potency SPD can alternatively be provided by an array of Red, Green and Violet and white LED chips where the Violet LED has a peak emission at approximately 415-420 nm and where the white LED is covered by a filter which removes all light in the 440-490 nm wavelength band [0340]. It is well known in the art that removal of light in the 440-490 nm wavelength range will lower and even eliminate the probability of a melanopic reaction in a human and thus help optimize the natural circadian timing during the day.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the light filtering to prevent melanopic activity of Moore-Ede with the therapeutic lighting, sensing, and software system of Lou because having control over the melanopic reaction of a patient allows for more control over that individual’s circadian rhythm.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Lou does not disclose that the light filtering enclosure is configured to prevent light having a wavelength of about 480-490 nm from passing through the enclosure.
However, Moore-Ede teaches that this optimized nighttime circadian potency SPD can alternatively be provided by an array of Red, Green and Violet and white LED chips where the Violet LED has a peak emission at approximately 415-420 nm and where the white LED is covered by a filter which removes all light in the 440-490 nm wavelength band [0340].
Therefore, 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 wavelength band of Moore-Ede from between 440-490 nm to between 480-490 nm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph [0023] of the specification indicating the wavelength band may be “at or near” the claimed range).
Regarding claims 18 and 21, Lou does not disclose that the light filtering enclosure is configured to permit light having a wavelength of about 620-650 nm to pass through the enclosure.
However, Moore-Ede teaches the spectral power distribution includes a relative maxima at about 600, 605, 610, or 620 nm [0288].
Therefore, 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 wavelength band of Moore-Ede from between 600-620 nm to between 620-650 nm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph [0023] of the specification indicating the wavelength band may be “near” the claimed range).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIONA M KOWALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/F.M.K./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights