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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1, lines 11-12; support means adapted to keep, in use, said mask in a predetermined position in front of the user’s face.
Claims 1-18, including but not limited to: “means of a warning signal”; “motion sensor means”; “means of an image acquisition device”; and “means of said device”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because software per se (computer program) does not have a physical or a tangible form and therefore is not directed to any of the statutory categories.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because signals per se (computer-readable memory) are transitory forms of signal transmission and therefore are not directed to any of the statutory categories.
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 1-18, 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.
Claims 1 & 10 recite a warning signal in steps c, e, g, and i. It is unclear if the warning signal is the same or different from the other warning signals.
Claims 13 recites “it provides.” It is unclear what “it” refers to. For the purpose of continued examination, “it” is interpreted to mean the computer program.
Claims 2-9, 11-12, 14-18 inherit the same deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites electronic computer to automatically select a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically set the wavelength and emission duration thereof to carry out a treatment of internal tissues of a user's eye. This claim does not include additional limitations upon claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 recites electronic computer, as a function of commands set by an operator through said control interface relating to a protocol for treating the internal tissues of the user's eye, to automatically select a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically set the wavelength and emission duration thereof. This claim does not include additional limitations upon claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedford et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2021/0315736 A1), in view of Samec et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2016/0270656 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tedford teaches a device for the treatment of ocular disorders, in particular for the treatment of the internal tissues of a user's eye, comprising
d) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for a first time interval ∆t1, at a wavelength to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of the closed eyes of said user ([0436], Table 4; step 7 eyelid closed; step 8 spectra measurement from 1st source requires a first time interval);
f) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for a second time interval ∆t2, to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of the open eyes of said user ([0436], Table 4; step 5 eyelid open; step 6 spectra measurement from 1st source requires a second time interval);
h) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for said first time interval ∆t1, at a wavelength to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of a user's closed eyes ([0436], Table 4; step 7 eyelid closed; step 8 spectra measurement from 2nd source requires a first time interval);
j) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for said second time interval ∆t2, at a wavelength to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of the open eyes of said user ([0436], Table 4; step 5 eyelid open; step 6 spectra measurement from 2nd source requires a second time interval),
but does not disclose,
a mask;
a plurality of light-emitting diodes distributed on the internal surface of said mask, said plurality of light-emitting diodes comprising at least one matrix of light-emitting diodes arranged in areas of said internal surface of the mask adapted to be facing, in use, the ocular areas of the user, said light-emitting diodes being arranged substantially at the same distance from the eyes of the user, and configured to emit electromagnetic radiations adapted to stimulate the cellular function of the retinal cells;
support means adapted to keep, in use, said mask in a predetermined position in front of the user's face;
an external control and/or power supply unit electrically connected to said light- emitting diodes and provided with a control interface;
wherein said control and/or power supply unit comprises an electronic computer; a memory readable by said electronic computer, comprising instructions which, when executed by said electronic computer, cause said electronic computer to perform the following steps:
a) receiving from an operator, through said control interface, commands relating to a protocol for treating the internal tissues of the user's eye;
b) automatically selecting a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically setting the wavelength and emission duration thereof (∆t);
c) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal,
d) in continuous mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm,
e) instructing said user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal,
f) in pulsed mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm,
g) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal,
h) in continuous mode;
i) instructing the user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal,
j) in pulsed mode,
as claimed.
However, Tedford teaches an embodiment for a multi-wavelength phototherapy system and further teaches,
a mask (1000, Fig. 10A-10B) ([0187]; wearable light therapy device 1000 construed as an eye mask; recites mask as an affixation element);
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (1010a, 1010b, 1010c) distributed on the internal surface of said mask (1004; Fig. 10A) ([0187]; internal surface of front piece 1004), said plurality of light-emitting diodes comprising at least one matrix of light-emitting diodes (1008, Fig. 10B) arranged in areas of said internal surface of the mask adapted to be facing, in use, the ocular areas of the user (Fig. 10A-10B; light arrays positioned in front of eyes), said light-emitting diodes being arranged substantially at the same distance from the eyes of the user (Fig. 10A-10B; light arrays positioned symmetrically across the plane of frame 1002), and configured to emit electromagnetic radiations ([0187]; light sources 1010a, 1010b, 1010c deliver light to eyes) adapted to stimulate the cellular function of the retinal cells;
support means adapted to keep, in use, said mask in a predetermined position in front of the user's face ([0187], Fig. 10A-10B; earpieces 1006 attached to frame 1002 which is attached to front piece 1004 to maintain position);
an external control ([0204], Fig. 15; system 1570 includes controller 1550 usable with wearable device 1000) and/or power supply unit electrically connected to said light- emitting diodes and provided with a control interface ([0204], Fig. 15; system 1570 includes user interface 1560 usable with wearable device 1000);
wherein said control and/or power supply unit comprises an electronic computer (1570, Fig. 15) ([0204]; system 1570 operates devices for treatment); a memory (1552, Fig. 15) readable by said electronic computer, comprising instructions which, when executed by said electronic computer, cause said electronic computer to perform the following steps ([0208]; controller executes program instructions according to a particular therapeutic regimen):
a) receiving from an operator, through said control interface, commands relating to a protocol for treating the internal tissues of the user's eye ([0205]; user controls therapy with controller 1550);
b) automatically selecting a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically setting the wavelength and emission duration thereof (∆t) ([0222-0223]; logic circuit and closed-loop monitoring selects and adjusts optimal parameters);
d) in continuous mode ([0311]; continuous-wave), at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm ([0239]; 590 ± 30 nm)
f) in pulsed mode ([0311]; pulsed light beam), at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm ([0239]; 590 ± 30 nm);
h) in continuous mode ([0311]; continuous-wave), at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 630 nm ([0239]; 600-700 nm);
j) in pulsed mode ([0311]; pulsed light beam), at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 630 nm ([0239]; 600-700 nm),
but does not disclose,
c) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal,
e) instructing said user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal,
g) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal,
i) instructing the user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal.
However, Samec teaches an augmented reality head-mounted ophthalmic system for delivering eye therapy. Samec is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of delivering light therapy by instructing the user with generated alerts,
Samec further teaches,
c) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal ([2141]; patient receives alert to keep eyes open; examiner notes alert can signal patient to close or open eyes),
e) instructing said user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal ([2141]; patient receives alert to keep eyes open),
g) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal ([2141]; patient receives alert to keep eyes open),
i) instructing the user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal ([2141]; patient receives alert to keep eyes open),
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, as taught by Tedford, with a mask, a plurality of light-emitting diodes distributed on the internal surface of said mask, said plurality of light-emitting diodes comprising at least one matrix of light-emitting diodes arranged in areas of said internal surface of the mask adapted to be facing, in use, the ocular areas of the user, said light-emitting diodes being arranged substantially at the same distance from the eyes of the user, and configured to emit electromagnetic radiations adapted to stimulate the cellular function of the retinal cells, support means adapted to keep, in use, said mask in a predetermined position in front of the user's face, an external control and/or power supply unit electrically connected to said light- emitting diodes and provided with a control interface wherein said control and/or power supply unit comprises an electronic computer, a memory readable by said electronic computer, comprising instructions which, when executed by said electronic computer, cause said electronic computer to perform the following steps:
a) receiving from an operator, through said control interface, commands relating to a protocol for treating the internal tissues of the user's eye;
b) automatically selecting a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically setting the wavelength and emission duration thereof (∆t);
c) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal,
d) in continuous mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm,
e) instructing said user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal,
f) in pulsed mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm,
g) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal,
h) in continuous mode;
i) instructing the user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal,
j) in pulsed mode,
and with a warning signal instructing the user to close the eyes and a warning signal instructing the user to open the eyes, as taught by Samec. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve photobiomodulation therapy by delivering light therapy through open or closed eyelids (Tedford, [0017]) and to improve control over target areas by scattering light through closed eyelids (Tedford, [0220]).
Regarding claim 2, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose, wherein said warning signal is an acoustic signal and/or a vibration signal and/or a signal displayed on said control interface.
However, Samec further teaches wherein said warning signal is an acoustic signal ([2141]; sound-based alerts) and/or a vibration signal and/or a signal displayed on said control interface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, as taught by Tedford and Samec, with a warning signal that is an acoustic signal and/or a vibration signal and/or a signal displayed on said control interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve therapy by enabling alerts that do not require the user to change eye accommodation and/or vergence (Samec, [2141]).
Regarding claim 3, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the device of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein said signal displayed on said control interface is an image and/or a text message.
However, Samec further teaches wherein said signal displayed on said control interface is an image ([2141]; visual cue displays image) and/or a text message.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, as taught by Tedford and Samec, with a signal displayed on said control interface is an image and/or a text message. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve therapy by tracking different views of the eyes (Samec, [2141]).
Regarding claim 4, Tedford, in view Samec, teaches the device of claim 1, and Tedford further teaches wherein said light-emitting diodes are configured to emit a beam of electromagnetic radiations at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm ([0239]; 590 ± 30 nm) to inhibit the expression of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) ([0386]; inhibit VEGF) and increase the expression of nitric oxide ([0120]; ~640-700 nm displaces NO).
Regarding claim 5, Tedford, in view Samec, teaches the device of claim 1, and Tedford further teaches wherein said light-emitting diodes are configured to emit a beam of electromagnetic radiations at a wavelength in an interval of ± 40 nm around 630 nm to promote electron transfer and oxygen binding of cytochrome C oxidase (CCO) by increasing mitochondrial metabolic activity ([0081]; ~600-700 nm stimulates mitochondrial CCO).
Regarding claim 6, Tedford, in view Samec, teaches the device of claim 1, and Tedford further teaches wherein said memory readable (1552, Fig. 15) by said electronic computer (1570, Fig. 15) comprises instructions which ([0208]; controller executes program instructions according to a particular therapeutic regimen), when executed by said electronic computer, cause said electronic computer to automatically select a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically set the wavelength and emission duration thereof to carry out a treatment of internal tissues of a user's eye ([0209]; treatment program includes a set of activation times during which each light source is in an emitting state, [0226]; logic circuit provides automatic adjustment of various parameters of the applied light).
Regarding claim 7, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the device of claim 6, and Tedford further teaches wherein said memory comprises instructions that, when executed by said electronic computer, cause said electronic computer, as a function of commands set by an operator through said control interface ([0154]; user initiates controls through user interface) relating to a protocol for treating the internal tissues of the user's eye ([0208]; controller executes program instructions according to a particular therapeutic regimen), to automatically select a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically set the wavelength and emission duration thereof ([0209]; treatment program includes a set of activation times during which each light source is in an emitting state, [0226]; logic circuit provides automatic adjustment of various parameters of the applied light).
Regarding claim 8, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the device of claim 1, and Tedford further teaches wherein it comprises an image acquisition device (754, Fig. 7) adapted to acquire images of the eyes of a user and/or motion sensor means ([0228]; camera monitors spatial position of eyes), said image acquisition device and/or said motion sensor means being adapted to detect whether the user has open or closed eyes ([0229]; device actively monitors state of eyelids e.g. open or closed).
Regarding claim 9, Tedford, in view Samec, teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein it comprises an acoustic signal transmitter.
However, Samec teaches an embodiment with a diagnostic system comprising a sound emitter.
Samec further teaches, wherein it comprises an acoustic signal transmitter ([2186]; emits and detects soundwaves).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, as taught by Tedford and Samec, with an acoustic signal transmitter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve therapy by using soundwaves for diagnosis (Samec, [2186]).
Regarding claim 10, Tedford, in view of Samec, teach the device according to claim 1, and Tedford further teaches a computer program comprising instructions that cause the device according to claim 1 ([0208]; controller executes program instructions according to a particular therapeutic regimen) to perform the following steps (examiner notes that Tedford, in view of Samec, teach the following steps in claim 1):
a) receiving from an operator, through said control interface, commands relating to a protocol for treating the internal tissues of the user's eye;
b) automatically selecting a plurality of said light-emitting diodes and automatically setting the wavelength and emission duration thereof (∆t);
c) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal;
d) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for a first time interval ∆t1, in continuous mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of the closed eyes of said user;
e) instructing the user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal;
f) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for a second time interval ∆t2, in pulsed mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 590 nm to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of the open eyes of said user;
g) instructing the user to close the eyes by means of a warning signal;
h) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for said first time interval ∆t1, in continuous mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ±40 nm around 630 nm to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of a user's closed eyes;
i) instructing the user to open the eyes by means of a warning signal;
j) operating said plurality of said light-emitting diodes for said second time interval ∆t2, in pulsed mode, at a wavelength in an interval of ± 40 nm around 630 nm to emit electromagnetic radiations in the direction of the open eyes of said user.
Regarding claim 11, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the computer program of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein said warning signal is an acoustic signal and/or a vibration signal and/or a signal displayed on said control interface.
However, Samec further teaches wherein said warning signal is an acoustic signal ([2141]; sound-based alerts) and/or a vibration signal and/or a signal displayed on said control interface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, as taught by Tedford and Samec, with a warning signal that is an acoustic signal and/or a vibration signal and/or a signal displayed on said control interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve therapy by enabling alerts that do not require the user to change eye accommodation and/or vergence (Samec, [2141]).
Regarding claim 12, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the computer program of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein said signal displayed on said control interface is an image and/or a text message.
However, Samec further teaches wherein said signal displayed on said control interface is an image ([2141]; visual cue displays image) and/or a text message.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as taught by Tedford and Samec, with a signal displayed on said control interface is an image and/or a text message. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve therapy by tracking different views of the eyes (Samec, [2141]).
Regarding claim 13, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the computer program of claim 10, and Tedford further teaches wherein before steps d, f and h it provides for the step of checking whether the eyes of said user are closed or open ([0229]; device monitors state of eyelid during therapy).
Regarding claim 14, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the computer program of claim 13, and Tedford further teaches wherein said step of checking whether the eyes of said user are closed or open is performed by means of an image acquisition device (754, Fig. 7), adapted to acquire at least one image of the eyes of the user ([0230]; camera used for measuring pupil diameter necessarily requires an image of the eyes), and/or by motion sensor means.
Regarding claim 15, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the computer program of claim 10, and Tedford further teaches wherein said first time interval ∆t1 is equal to 6 minutes ([0350]; treatment period from 1 minute to 20 minutes includes 6 minutes), or around ± 1 minute with the duration of 6 minutes and said second time interval ∆t2 is equal to 1 minute ([0350]; treatment period from 1 minute to 5 minutes includes 1 minute), or around ± 15 seconds with the duration of 1 minute.
Regarding claim 18, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the computer program of claim 10, and Tedford further teaches computer-readable memory (1564, Fig. 15), into which the computer program according to claim 10 is loaded ([0208]; programmable controller 1550 coupled to memory 1564).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedford et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2021/0315736 A1), in view of Samec et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2016/0270656 A1), and in further view of Eells et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2021/0060354 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Tedford, in view of Samec, teaches the computer program of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein it comprises the further instruction to set a repetition of said steps a-j constituting a treatment session, by means of said device, for at least one further treatment session, preferably for further 6-7 said sessions, thus defining a treatment cycle, and to set a time interval between a session and a said further session comprised between 3 and 4 days, as claimed.
However, Eells teaches a system and a method for treating ocular diseases using photobiomodulation. Eells is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of providing recurring light therapy treatments.
Eells further teaches, wherein it comprises the further instruction to set a repetition of said steps a-j constituting a treatment session, by means of said device, for at least one further treatment session, preferably for further 6-7 said sessions, thus defining a treatment cycle, and to set a time interval between a session and a said further session comprised between 3 and 4 days ([0058]; 2 days in a 7-day period includes an interval of 3-4 days between sessions).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as taught by Tedford and Samec, with instruction to set a repetition of said steps a-j constituting a treatment session, by means of said device, for at least one further treatment session, preferably for further 6-7 said sessions, thus defining a treatment cycle, and to set a time interval between a session and a said further session comprised between 3 and 4 days, as taught by Eells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to prevent progression of retinopathy by performing additional photobiomodulation treatments over time (Eells, [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Tedford, in view of Samec and Eells, teaches the computer program of claim 16, but does not disclose further comprising the further instruction to set a repetition of said treatment cycle, by operating said light-emitting diodes, after a period of time comprised between 6 and 9 months from the first treatment session, and to set a total number of treatment sessions comprised between 4 and 7 or equal to 6 sessions.
However, Eells teaches, further comprising the further instruction to set a repetition of said treatment cycle, by operating said light-emitting diodes, after a period of time comprised between 6 and 9 months from the first treatment session ([0058]; once every 6-9 months), and to set a total number of treatment sessions comprised between 4 and 7 or equal to 6 sessions ([0058]; treatment set to twice a week with three consecutive weeks).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, as taught by Tedford, Samec, and Eells, with instruction to set a repetition of said treatment cycle, by operating said light-emitting diodes, after a period of time comprised between 6 and 9 months from the first treatment session, and to set a total number of treatment sessions comprised between 4 and 7 or equal to 6 sessions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to prevent progression of retinopathy by performing additional photobiomodulation treatments over time (Eells, [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWANE COLLARD whose telephone number is (571)272-6553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-6 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, Ben Klein can be reached at (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 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.
/DWANE COLLARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights