Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/11/2025. Currently claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 17-22, 24-36 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the previous objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to claim 1. The previous objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the previous rejection of claim 22 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to claim 22. The previous of rejection of claim 22 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-16, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the previous rejection of:
claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 17, 19, 26, 28-29 and 33-36 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Kubota II
claim(s) 3, 22 and 27 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Tedford
claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Backus
claim(s) 18 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Zele
claim(s) 20-21 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Palmer
claim(s) 24-25 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Coleman
claim(s) 30 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Youngblood
claim(s) 31-32 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Pang
have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to the claims. The previous of prior art rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 17-22 and 24-36 have been withdrawn.
Affidavits/Declaration
The declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 1/27/2026 (both declarations appear to be substantially the same except for the date of signature is different) in combination with the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim:
claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 17, 19, 26, 28-29 and 33-36 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Kubota II
claim(s) 3, 22 and 27 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Tedford
claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Backus
claim(s) 18 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Zele
claim(s) 20-21 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Palmer
claim(s) 24-25 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Coleman
claim(s) 30 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Youngblood
claim(s) 31-32 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota II in view of Kubota in view of Pang.
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 1-7, 9, 11-13, 17-22 and 24-36 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 1 recites the limitations:
“wherein the system further comprises a stationary or moving fixation target, wherein the fixation target is located along a line of sight of the eye of the user to cast or impart one or more of, a black or dark color toned shadow, a black or dark color toned area, or a black or dark color toned part of an area, configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user”
The bolded language raises issues of lack of clarity. Is the limitation “configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user” part of the Markush limitation. In other words, is the claim requiring the fixation target be one of the following: “a black or dark color toned shadow, a black or dark color toned area, or a black or dark color toned part of an area, configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user”. Or is the claim requiring the fixation target be one of the following: “a black or dark color toned shadow, a black or dark color toned area, or a black or dark color toned part of an area” and in addition the claim requires the limitation of configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user” as well. Second if the limitation “configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user” is required what element is required to be configured to cover an entire fovea? Is it the fixation target, the projection of the fixation target, the light or something else? For this examination, based on applicant’s arguments and the specification the interpretation taken is that the claim is intended to be interpreted as if written as the following:
“wherein the system further comprises a stationary or moving fixation target, wherein the fixation target is located along a line of sight of the eye of the user to cast or impart one or more of, a black or dark color toned shadow, a black or dark color toned area, or a black or dark color toned part of an area; and the black or dark color toned shadow, the black or dark color toned area, or the black or dark color toned part of an area is configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user”
Regardless if this is the intended interpretation or not, applicant should clarify what is being claimed here. Claims 2-7, 9, 11-13, 17-22 and 24-36 are rejected as well based on dependency to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 17-22, 24-36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Please note allowability is dependent on the interpretation taken which is outlined above in the 112 section.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim. Claim 1 recites a system.
The closest prior art is Zhou et al (US 20220107508) hereafter known as Zhou in view of Butzloff et al (US 20180345034) hereafter known as Butzloff. Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed as outlined below.
Regarding claim 1:
Zhou discloses:
A system [see Fig. 4A-4B and abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression”] comprising one or more light emitters [see Fig. 4B dotted lines and para 45… “When the surrounding lighting is dim to result in below-threshold contrast of micro-reticles images, the micro-reticle pattern can be lit up to compensate the dim and to just increase the contrast of the micro-reticle images on the paracentral and/or peripheral retina to make the contrast of the micro-reticle images above threshold such that neurophysiological signals can always be created.” The dotted lines are understood to be surrounding lighting which is a light source.],
wherein the system further comprises a stationary or moving fixation target [see Fig. 4A-4B element 408 of Zhou and para 96-97 of Zhou (see “micro-reticles 408” and “each micro-reticle and micro-lens pair is such that light rays from a micro-reticle will be focused by its corresponding micro-lens to create a virtual micro-reticle image in front of the wearer's eye at a desired object distance such that the eye can focus this virtual reticle image with the light rays from the micro-reticle that pass through the eye pupil to form a real reticle image that lands substantially on the paracentral and/or peripheral retina”) which disclose the image of reticle as a fixation target], wherein the fixation target is located along a line of sight of the eye of the user [see abstract… “The micro-reticle(s) and micro-lens(es) are integrated with the structure of the spectacle to partially block some of the paracentral and/or peripheral objects from surrounding optical environment.” Blocking the paracentral part of the eye is at least blocks the edges of the field of view (i.e. indicating being located along the line of sight)] to cast or impart one or more of, a black or dark color toned shadow, a black or dark color toned area, or a black or dark color toned part of an area [see para 208 of Zhou “We will now move on to discuss the contrast of the micro-reticle images in terms of controlling the transparency or opaqueness of the micro-reticle pattern or its local surrounding area as well as color filtering. As one feature of the present invention, the micro-reticles can be either completely opaque or semi-transparent. The semi-transparency can be reflective or absorptive or colored with different transparency percentages. The opaqueness or semi-transparency of the micro-reticle pattern can be achieved through coating or evaporating or printing different materials with different layer thickness or doping of colored dyes.” which discloses the micro-reticle pattern (i.e. fixation target) can be opaque (i.e. black)],
However, Zhou is silent as to the details of the light emitters and therefore fails to fully disclose “the one or more light emitters configured to (a) emit light and/or cease emitting the light, wherein the emitted light comprises ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, (b) emit the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light during an ocular light therapy session, and (c) provide a light intensity of ocular photo-biostimulation light configured to strike a retina of an eye of a user and operative to cause or induce a physiological effect to the eye and/or a brain of the user; wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is within a light wavelength range of one or more of 480nm +/- 30nm, 450nm - 500nm, 500nm +/- 30nm, 650nm +/- 30nm, 600nm - 700nm, 700nm +/- 30nm, or 830nm +/- 30nm.” Also, Zhou fails to disclose the fixation target that is “configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user, and wherein the one or more of, the shadow, the area, or the part of an area, reduce, block, or eliminate, an amount of an intensity and/or a quantity of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light that is emitted towards and/or strikes the entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and the part or all of the macula of the retina of the eye of the user.” as claimed.
Butzloff discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmological light treatments [see para 2… “This invention relates to treatment ocular disorders, in general, and to treatment of myopia, in particular.” And see abstract… “Illumination apparatus, ocular apparatus, and ocular method for treating at least one eye.”] an illuminator panel arrangement with light emitting diodes (i.e. light emitters) with control functions that emit and stop emitting light (i.e. limitations a and b) [see Figs. 5-8 element(s) 40 and para 46… “one therapeutic illuminator panel arrangement 40” and para 43… “Light source 27 may be a stand-alone panel, which may consist of an array of surface mounted light emitting diodes (SMD), or an array of chip-mounted optical output devices (COB).” And para 58… “A plurality of control functions may be provided. One function may be to shift the irradiance duty to a greater ratio or a lesser ratio of the higher to lower wavelength light emission devices using variable resistor trimming potentiometer 585. Another function may be to alter the duration of the light to a comfortable and gentle sinusoidal fade on and fade off period over hours or minutes”] that can illuminate human eyes with a wavelength of 640-690 nm (i.e. ocular photo-bio-stimulation light and limitation c as this wavelength light is capable of causing a physiological or neurological response in the eye) for the purpose of helping treat both myopia and macular degeneration which Butzloff discloses is often associated with myopia [see abstract… “Illuminator illuminates eyes with 100 lux of monochromatic red light of 640 nm to 690 nm. Illuminator controls progressive myopia leading to excessive axial elongation in a juvenile or to ameliorate macular degeneration in an aging adult.” And para 5… “Further, adults with extreme myopia can be prone to myopic macular degeneration later in life.”]
Since Zhou is directed to treating myopia [see abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression have a central zone that achieves foveal vision correction and distributed micro-reticle(s) and corresponding micro-lens(es) around the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the spectacle.”], Zhou is silent as to all the details of the light source (including the type of ocular photo-bio-stimulation light that is directed to macula) and Butzloff discloses that using a photo-bio-stimulation light source of a red tone will not also help treat myopia as well, but also help treat macular degeneration which is often associated with myopia, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou’s system to include using a surrounding light source that includes diodes capable turning on and off that can produce 640-690 nm as the light emitters (i.e. thereby reciting the ocular photo-stimulation light emitters with limitations a), b) and c) as claimed, including the light within 600-700 nm range) because this will increase the versality of the device to treat additional related eye conditions in addition to myopia.
However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose the fixation target as being “configured to cover an entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and part or all of a macula of the retina of the eye of the user, and wherein the one or more of, the shadow, the area, or the part of an area, reduce, block, or eliminate, an amount of an intensity and/or a quantity of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light that is emitted towards and/or strikes the entire fovea of the retina of the eye of the user or the entire fovea and the part or all of the macula of the retina of the eye of the user.” In particular Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose the black or dark color toned shadow, the black or dark color toned area, or the black or dark color toned part of an area is covering the “entire fovea of the retina” as the limitation has been interpreted as outlined above. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Zhou in view of Butzloff obviates these deficiencies. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations of claim 1 are neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792