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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/26/2025. Currently claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 12-16, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 1, 3,6, 8-9, 12, 15-18, 20-21, 23-25, 28 and 30 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan
claim(s) 2 and 4-5 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota II
claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Luttrull in view of Rosenberg Maffia
claim(s) 10-11, 13-14, 19, 22 and 26 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota
claim(s) 27 and 29 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Tedford
have been fully considered and are persuasive based on applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional references of Lemoff et al (US 20190355287), Butzloff et al (US 20180345034) and/or Zhou et al (US 20220107508) as outlined below.
Since much of the same prior art has been maintained and there is some key issues that need to be addressed as to why. The main crux(es) of applicant’s arguments will be briefly addressed.
The crux of applicant’s arguments is that a dark toned area as recited in claim 1 at least partially or completely blocks light [see pg. 12 under Support for the Amendments in applicant’s arguments received on 11/26/2025] and that neither Tuan, nor Tuan in view of Kubota II disclose blocking or reducing light therapy treatment. Furthermore, applicant alleges that to modify Tuan or Tuan with Kubota II as outlined in the previous rejection (rejection in final rejection mailed on 10/1/2025) would render Tuan’s and/or Kubota’s II entire principle of operation useless. Therefore, the modification or combination of prior art as proposed in the previous office action would change the principle of operation which is not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious as outlined in MPEP 2143.01. [see pgs. 12-16 of applicant’s arguments received on 11/26/2025].
In response, overall, these arguments are only persuasive for claims 2, 12-13 and 30 and not persuasive for claims 1, 3-11 and 14-29. This is because applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. If one looks to the specification, there does not appear to be a special definition that defines a dark colored area as argued. Therefore, absent a special definition, the broadest reasonable interpretation needs to be applied. Given there is no special definition, a dark color is a relatively broad description. While, one interpretation of a dark color is one that partially or completely blocks light, this isn’t the broadest reasonable interpretation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation a deep red can be interpreted as a dark red tone absent further descriptions. Additionally, based on the way the limitation “(b) a dark grey or red color toned area surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-biostimulation light” is written, a red color tone can be used (note that it doesn’t require a dark red color) so even if dark was more narrowly interpreted than the broadest reasonable interpretation, a red color that doesn’t necessarily need to be dark could recite this feature of claim 1. Thus, this argument is not commensurate with scope of all the claims. However, given the arguments and the affidavit/declaration received on 2/2/2026 (which will be addressed as well directly below), the argument that blocking light would change the principle operation of Tuan and/or Kubota II and therefore is not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious is found to be persuasive. However, only claims 2, 12-13 and 30 appear to require the argued feature of blocking or reducing light under broadest reasonable interpretation. Since only claims 2, 12-13 and 30 require the argued feature of blocking or reducing light therapy (or depend on a claim that recite the argued feature) as can be seen explicitly in claim 2 and via claimed blind spot (understood to be a reference to a void or black spot disclosed in the application based on the cited sections for support in applicant’s arguments received on 11/26/2025) and none of claims 1, 3-11, 14-29 as amended in the set of claims received on 11/26/2025 require blocking or reducing light therapy, applicant’s arguments are persuasive with respect to claims 2, 12-13 and 30 only and not persuasive to claims 1, 3-11 and 14-29 because the arguments are not commensurate to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. That said, even though the arguments for claims 1, 3-11 and 14-29 isn’t fully persuasive, applicant’s amendments to these claims have resulted in applicant overcoming all the rejections to claim 1-30, rending the new grounds of rejection outlined below.
Affidavits/ Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/2/2026 in combination with the amendments is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan and the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota II and the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota. However, a new rejection under a new grounds for claims 1-30 has been made as outlined below.
However, since much of the same prior art is being applied in some of the claims, a brief note should be mentioned to help provide clarity on the record as to what was established here. As mentioned above in the response to arguments, a “dark color” is a relatively broad description. While, one interpretation of a dark color is one that partially or completely blocks light, this isn’t the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, under broadest reasonable interpretation a deep blue can be interpreted as a dark blue tone absent further descriptions without necessarily blocking or reducing light even in light of applicant’s specification. Also, under broadest reasonable interpretation based on the way the claim is written for claim 1 only a red color tone is required not a dark red color tone. This declaration doesn’t address these assertions or issues. Specifically, the declaration is directed to the feature of blocking or reducing light (see pg. 3 of declaration… “All of the central projectors are aimed in the central field of view; i.e. at the fovea and its surroundings." (Tuan, para. 28 (emphases added).) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably read this unequivocal, absolute, and definitive language in Tuan as requiring the focused or defocused retinal image to strike the fovea. If that light was blocked from striking the fovea, Tuan would be rendered wholly inoperable for treating the eye according to its disclosure. Consequently, one of skill in the art would not be motivated by Tuan to re-configure the system to block a focused or defocused retinal image from striking the central retina, because it is clear from the reference that the focused or defocused retinal image must strike the central retina for the disclosed Tuan device to be effective.”). Underpinning the entire assertion in arguments in the declaration is that the claims require blocking/ attenuating light from reaching the macula and/or fovea. This feature is not required under broadest reasonable interpretation for claims 1, 3-11 and 14-29 as the claims have been amended in the most recent set of claim amendments and this feature appears to only be present in claims 2, 12-13 and 30 as discussed in response to the arguments above. Since the key feature relied upon in this declaration is not recited in claims 1, 3-11 and 14-29, and is only disclosed in the specification and pending claims 2, 12-13 and 30, it is important to note that crux of the arguments presented in the declaration are not commensurate to the scope of claims 1, 3-11 and 14-29 as currently amendment. This is why Tuan is still applied, but under a new grounds for some of the claims. Applicant should be aware of this key issue when determining how to best proceed in their future decisions during patent prosecution.
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, 4-6, 9-10, 15-18, 20-21, 23-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan et al (US 20180017814) hereafter known as Tuan in view of Lemoff et al (US 20190355287) hereafter known as Lemoff.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 1:
Tuan discloses:
An ocular light therapy system [see Fig. 1 and abstract… “An eye mounted display presents defocused images to patients to affect their eyeball development and control focusing disorders such as myopia or hyperopia.”], the system comprising:
an ocular photo-bio-stimulation light source emitting ocular photo-biostimulation light to stimulate and/or strike an area of a retina of an eye of an individual, wherein at least some of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is directed towards a macula of the eye of the individual [see Fig. 1 elements 120A (i.e. light source) and para 22-23… “An eye mounted display presents defocused images to patients to affect their eyeball development and control focusing disorders such as myopia or hyperopia.” And para 15… "A femtoprojector includes an image source and an optical system. The image source may be a display chip that includes an array of light-emitting pixels. A light emitting diode (LED) array is an example of a display chip.” Which shows light being directed to the center of the retina (i.e. the macula)];
wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is between 400-700nm [see para 20… “femtoprojectors may project images that over- or underemphasize certain parts of the visual spectrum. Humans can see light ranging from about 400 nm to about 700 nm in wavelength.”]; and
However, Tuan fails to disclose “wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is operative to cause a physiological or neurological response in the eye or a brain of the individual, wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light comprises light wavelengths within a light wavelength range of at least one or more of, 475nm +/- 20nm, 480nm +/- 30nm, 450nm - 500nm, 500nm +/-30nm, 530nm +/- 20nm, 650nm +/- 30nm, 600nm - 700nm, 700nm +/- 30nm or 830nm +/- 30nm” or “wherein the system is configured to generate for visual perception by the individual, (a) a black area surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, (b) a dark grey or red color toned area surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-biostimulation light, or (c) a dark color toned area configured to minimize pupil constriction of the eye of the individual and surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, wherein the system generated areas of (a), (b), or (c), are configured to cover an entirety of a fovea of the eye of the individual and/or part or all of the macula of the eye of the individual when the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is being emitted.”
Lemoff discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmological devices [abstract… “In some designs, an eye-mounted display includes multiple femtoprojectors contained inside a contact lens. Femtoprojectors that project to peripheral regions of the retina can have lower resolution.” And para 1… “This disclosure relates generally to projectors for eye-mounted displays.”] overlapping peripheral femtoprojectors with central femtoprojectors for the purpose of allowing images to be stitched together thereby allowing for the projection of larger images [see para 18… “Different femtoprojectors project to different areas of the retina. In one approach, some femtoprojector(s) project images onto the fovea and other femtoprojectors project images onto more peripheral regions of the retina. These will be referred to as central femtoprojector(s) and peripheral femtoprojectors, respectively. If the images are overlapping, they can be stitched together to create a larger image in the aggregate. Because the retina has higher resolution in the fovea and lower resolution in the periphery, the requirements on the image sources and the optical systems can be different between the central and peripheral femtoprojectors, or even between peripheral femtoprojectors projecting to different regions of the retina.” And para 4… “The femtoprojectors in an eye-mounted display include an image source and an optical system. A femtoprojector's optical system is designed to project images from the image source onto the retina so that the images appear in a person's field of vision.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the light sources (i.e. the photo-bio-stimulation light sources) to produce light within the 650 +/- 30nm range because this a subset of the 400-700 nm range disclosed by Tuan (also, please note based on para 57 of applicant’s specification received on 5/21/2025 [see “In certain embodiments the objective of ocular photo-biostimulation is to increase dopamine within the eye's retina. When increasing dopamine in the eye and/or retina, ocular photo-bio-stimulation blue light having wavelengths within the range of 450nm to 510nm can be used, or, for increasing dopamine in the eye and/or retina, ocular photobio-stimulation red light wavelengths of 650nm +/- 30nm can be utilized.”] red light (i.e. 650 +/- 30nm) is capable of increasing dopamine in the eye of the user (i.e. a physiological or neurological response in the eye)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Tuan by sizing the central femtoprojector and the peripheral femtoprojectors so that the image projected by the central femtoprojector encompasses the entire fovea and the borders of the macula with overlapping from the peripheral femtoprojectors on the edges similarly to that disclosed by Lemoff (i.e. thereby reciting “wherein the system is configured to generate for visual perception by the individual, (a) a black area surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, (b) a dark grey or red color toned area surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-biostimulation light, or (c) a dark color toned area configured to minimize pupil constriction of the eye of the individual and surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, wherein the system generated areas of (a), (b), or (c), are configured to cover an entirety of a fovea of the eye of the individual and/or part or all of the macula of the eye of the individual when the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is being emitted.”) because this will allow for images to be stitched together thereby allowing for larger image size in the view of vision thereby allowing for different sizing of different images which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to allow for increased versatility.
Dependent claims:
Regarding claim 4-5, 10 and 26, see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses Tuan in view of Lemoff as having overlapping peripheral femtoprojectors (i.e. fixation targets) that project red light as recited by claim 4. Also, see para 8 of Tuan [see “FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional diagram of a femtoprojector array mounted in a contact lens”] which discloses the femtoprojectors as being mounted (i.e. stationary) as recited by claim 5 and 26 and see rejection to claim 1 which discloses the peripheral femtoprojectors as overlapping with the light of the central projector (i.e. partially within the emitted ocular photo-biostimulation light) as recited by claim 10.
Regarding claim 6:
Tuan in view of Lemoff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Tuan in view of Lemoff fails to disclose the shape of the fixation target. Thus, Tuan in view of Lemoff fails to disclose “wherein the fixation target is round or of any shape” as recited by claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tuan in view of Lemoff because absent unpredictable results this is a mere change in shape which has been deemed by an obvious modification [see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)].
Regarding claim 9, see Fig. 1 element 110 of Tuan which shows the system is a contact lens (i.e. monocular photo-bio-stimulation light therapy).
Regarding claim 15, see para 22 of Tuan [see “The femtoprojector array 120 has peripheral myopic defocus.”] and para 29 of Tuan [see “The capability of a femtoprojector array in a contact lens to simultaneously present focused images at the fovea and intentionally defocused images in the periphery (or at the fovea) lends itself to treating focusing disorders such as myopia, hyperopia and accommodative lag in children.”] disclose treating the focusing disorder of myopia in children (i.e. slowing or stopping of increased myopic optical corrective power).
Regarding claim 16, see Fig. 1 element 110 and para 22 of Tuan [see “Turning now to the drawings, FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional diagram of a femtoprojector array 120 mounted in a contact lens 110 as worn on a person's eyeball 150.”] which discloses a contact lens that is worn on the individual when receiving the stimulation light.
Regarding claim 17, see Fig. 1 and para 22 of Tuan [see “The femtoprojector array 120 has peripheral myopic defocus.”] which discloses a lens that projects light to treat myopia and therefore is understood to be a myopic control lens.
Regarding claim 18, see para 15 of Tuan [see “A femtoprojector includes an image source and an optical system. The image source may be a display chip that includes an array of light-emitting pixels. A light emitting diode (LED) array is an example of a display chip. The optical system includes lenses and/or mirrors that focus light from the image source onto the retina. A femtoprojector may be aimed at a specific part of the retina.”] which discloses the femtoprojectors (i.e. 102A or light sources) as being a light emitting diodes.
Regarding claims 20-21, see Fig. 1, para 22 of Tuan [see “Turning now to the drawings, FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional diagram of a femtoprojector array 120 mounted in a contact lens 110 as worn on a person's eyeball 150.”], and para 15 of Tuan [see “A femtoprojector includes an image source and an optical system. The image source may be a display chip that includes an array of light-emitting pixels. A light emitting diode (LED) array is an example of a display chip. The optical system includes lenses and/or mirrors that focus light from the image source onto the retina.”] which disclose a contact lens (i.e. eyewear) that includes femtoprojectors with lenses and mirrors (i.e. lenses or optics housed, supported or attached to the eyewear). Finally, as shown in Fig. 1 the eyewear is worn while the uses/receives the light (i.e. rays from elements 120B in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23:
see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses Tuan in view of Lemoff as having overlapping peripheral femtoprojectors (i.e. fixation targets) that are configured to be used in conjunction with the ocular light source to partly surround the red light as recited by claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, see para 22 of Tuan [see “The femtoprojector array 120 has peripheral myopic defocus.”] which discloses the photo-bio-stimulation light as including defocused light.
Regarding claim 25, see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses how Tuan in view of Lemoff uses red light that increases dopamine as claimed.
Regarding claim 28, see Fig. 1 of Tuan and para 22 of Tuan [see “The part of the retina near the fovea, the center of the visual field, is marked “central 152” while areas of the fovea away from the fovea are marked “peripheral 154”. The central area 152 of the retina may be any part within about five to about ten degrees of the visual axis. The peripheral area 154 of the retina may include any other part of the retina that is not in the central area.”] which shows photo-stimulation light (i.e. light from 120A) as being applied to the center retina (i.e. macula).
Claim(s) 1-3, 12-13 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 20220107508) hereafter known as Zhou in view of Butzloff et al (US 20180345034) hereafter known as Burzloff
Independent claim:
Claim 1:
Zhou discloses:
An ocular light therapy system [see Fig. 4A-4B and abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression”], the system comprising:
an ocular photo-bio-stimulation light source emitting ocular photo-biostimulation light to stimulate and/or strike a retina of an eye of an individual [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 at least some of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is directed towards a macula of the eye of the individual [see Fig. 4A-4B which shows the dotted line going to the center of the retina (i.e. the macula)];
However, Zhou fails is silent as to the details of the surrounding light and the surrounding light source (i.e. the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light source) and thus Zhou fails to fully disclose:
“wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is operative to cause a physiological or neurological response in the eye or a brain of the individual or a body of the individual, wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light comprises light wavelengths within a light wavelength range of at least one or more of, 475nm +/- 20nm, 480nm +/- 30nm, 450nm - 500nm, 500nm +/-30nm, 530nm +/- 20nm, 650nm +/- 30nm, 600nm - 700nm, 700nm +/- 30nm or 830nm +/- 30nm; and
wherein the system is configured to generate for visual perception by the individual, (a) a black area surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, (b) a dark grey or red color toned area surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-biostimulation light, or (c) a dark color toned area configured to minimize pupil constriction of the eye of the individual and surrounded fully or in part by the emitted ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, wherein the system generated areas of (a), (b), or (c), are configured to cover an entirety of a fovea of the eye of the individual and/or part or all of the macula of the eye of the individual when the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is being emitted.”
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 (i.e. a photo-bio-stimulation light source) [see Figs. 5-8 element(s) 40 and para 46… “one therapeutic illuminator panel arrangement 40”] that applies a light with 100 lux and 640-690 nm light (i.e. a red tone) to the eyes for the purpose of helping treat 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 surrounding 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 produces 640-690 nm at 100 lux as the ambient light source (i.e. thereby reciting the ocular photo-stimulation light source as claimed, including the light within 600-700 nm and/or 650 +/- 30nm which also is noted as in para 57 of applicant’s specification received on 5/21/2025 as increasing dopamine in the eye (i.e. physiological or neurological response in the eye) and which produces a visual perception of a red color tone as claimed) because this will increase the versality of the device to treat additional related eye conditions in addition to myopia.
Regarding claims 2-3, see Fig. 4A-4B element 408 of Zhou, para 96 of Zhou [see “On the front surface 404, micro-reticles 408 are positioned deposited or embedded, with optional protective over-coating around the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the single vision correction spectacle lens 402.”], abstract of Zhou [see “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.”], and para 208 of Zhou [see para 208… “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 micro-reticles (i.e. fixation target(s)) as being opaque patterns (i.e. devoid of an ocular photo-bio-stimulation electrical light emitter) that block light to the paracentral (i.e. at least outer boundaries of macula) and the periphery of the retina as recited by claims 2-3.
Regarding claims 12-13, see Fig. 4A-4B of Zhou, para 96 of Zhou [see “On the front surface 404, micro-reticles 408 are positioned deposited or embedded, with optional protective over-coating around the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the single vision correction spectacle lens 402.”], abstract of Zhou [see “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.”] and
Para 102 [see “In this invention, there is intentional blocking (at least partial blocking) of light by the darker portion(s) of the micro-reticle arranged in front of its corresponding micro-lens so a micro-pattern image of certain contrast can be formed substantially on, or in front, of the paracentral and/or peripheral retina.”] which describe the light as reaching the center of the retina and only the paracentral and periphery of the retina of the light being blocked by micro-reticles (i.e. red light cover the entirety of the fovea, blind spots in the paracentral of the retina (which is at least at the boundary of the macula and is perceivable) and at least partially surrounded by photo-bio-stimulation light) which recites claim 12. Additionally, as the micro-reticles are merely interacting with the light to resulting in blocking as the light enters the glasses Zhou in view Burzloff structurally is at least capable of having the light and blind spots appear simultaneously as recited by claim 13.
Independent claim
Regarding claim 30:
Zhou discloses:
A system for treating an eye of an individual [see Fig. 4A-4B and abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression”], the system comprising:
an ocular photo-bio-stimulation light source configured to emit ocular photo-bio stimulation light [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 ocular photo-bio-stimulation light source and/or the system are configured to generate a blind spot perceived by the individual, wherein the blind spot is surrounded by the emitted ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, and wherein the blind spot is configured to be perceived by the individual as extending in space along a z axis from eye of the individual” [see Fig. 4A-4B element 408 of Zhou, para 96 of Zhou… “On the front surface 404, micro-reticles 408 are positioned deposited or embedded, with optional protective over-coating around the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the single vision correction spectacle lens 402.” and abstract… see “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.” And para 208… “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 micro-reticles as being opaque patterns that block light to the paracentral and the periphery of the retina (i.e. blind spots at least partially surrounded by photo-bio-stimulation light) is structurally capable of being perceived as extending in space along the z axis]
However, Zhou is silent as to the details of the surrounding light and the surrounding light source (i.e. the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light source) and thus Zhou fails to fully disclose:
“wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light comprises light wavelengths within a light wavelength range of at least one or more of, 475nm +/- 20nm, 480nm +/- 30nm, 450nm - 500nm, 500nm +/- 30nm, 530nm +/- 20nm, 650nm +/- 30nm, 600nm - 700nm, 700nm +/- 30nm or 830nm +/- 30nm.”
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 (i.e. a photo-bio-stimulation light source) [see Figs. 5-8 element(s) 40 and para 46… “one therapeutic illuminator panel arrangement 40”] that applies a light with 100 lux and 640-690 nm light to the eyes for the purpose of helping treat 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 surrounding 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 produces 640-690 nm at 100 lux as the ambient light source (i.e. thereby reciting the ocular photo-stimulation light source as claimed, including the light within 600-700 nm) because this will increase the versality of the device to treat additional related eye conditions in addition to myopia.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luttrull et al (US 20160339264) hereafter known as Luttrull in view of Rosenberg Maffia et al (US 20210312613) hereafter known as Rosenberg Maffia.
Tuan in view of Lemoff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 above. Additionally, Tuan in view of Lemoff discloses an optical system that delivers the stimulation to the retina [see para 15 of Tuan… “A femtoprojector includes an image source and an optical system… The optical system includes lenses and/or mirrors that focus light from the image source onto the retina.”] and a fixation target [see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses Tuan in view of Lemoff as having overlapping peripheral femtoprojectors (i.e. fixation targets)]
However, Tuan in view of Lemoff fails to disclose “wherein
the fixation target is larger in size compared to a size of the fovea and/or the macula based on a selected or chosen distance between the fovea and/or the macula and the fixation target” as recited by claim 7 or “wherein a size of the fixation target is configured to be perceived by the individual as a same size or a larger size, than the fovea and/or the macula” as recited by claim 8.
Rosenberg Maffia in the analogous art of treatment of ophthalmic phototherapy [see abstract… “A method and apparatus of early-stage detection of glaucoma and other optic nerve or retinal diseases employs dynamic images”] that size-scaling images by adjusting the distance of a fixation target relative to the retina is a known way adjust with variation in the sensitivity of retinal cells [see Fig. 4 and para 69… “Referring now to FIG. 4, the present invention also contemplates that the contrast and/or size-scaling of the dynamic image 16 may be adjusted as a function of its distance from the center fixation target 18, for example, to compensate for known variations in the sensitivity of retinal cells, as well as normal variations between individuals”].
Luttrull discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmic treatment [see abstract… “A process for using a retinal photostimulation device involves limiting multiple or repeated uses of the device during a particular treatment cycle.”] a known way to align and adjust different structures of an ophthalmic device with an eye includes a control system and a series of motors that adjust in the different elements relative to each other in the x, y and z axes and the eye [see para 33… “A visible patient fixation target or general positioning light (not shown) configured to illuminate the target area may be included to assist with this general alignment. The positioning light is projected into the eye coaxially with the laser optics 38 and camera 46. One may then use the joystick 42 and position motors to fine-tune the position and precise alignment of the device laser optics 38 and camera 46 with the eye.” And para 26… “A joystick 42 having a spherical contact junction provides multiple degrees of movement to control operation of the device 14. Multiple degrees of movement refers to movement in directions such as, front-to-back, side-to-side, up and down (z-axis adjustment)”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tuan in view of Lemoff’s device by including a control system with motors configured to move the fixation target and optics in the X,Y,Z-axis similarly to that disclosed by Luttrull (i.e. claims 7-8) because as taught by Rosenberg Maffia this will provide the benefit of allowing a user to adjust the size the fixation target with the eye being treated to compensate for variations in sensitivity of retinal cells between different individuals.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Kubota et al (US 20210031051) hereafter known as Kubota
Regarding claims 11, 14 and 19:
Tuan in view of Lemoff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 and a fixation target [see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses Tuan in view of Lemoff as having overlapping peripheral femtoprojectors (i.e. fixation targets] that is configured to be perceived by the individual as being located partially or fully within the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light [see rejection to claim 1 which discloses the peripheral femtoprojectors as overlapping with the light of the central projector (i.e. partially within the emitted ocular photo-biostimulation light)]
However, Tuan in view of Lemoff fails to disclose “wherein the fixation target moves” as recited by claim 11, “wherein the fixation target moves or is configured to be perceived to move by the individual, and wherein the fixation target’s movement or perceived movement is: continuous, periodic, or intermittent” as recited by claim 14, and “wherein the light emitters or the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light source flicker and/or modulate at one or more of, 5Hz - 15Hz, 40Hz +/- 20Hz, 60Hz +/- 20Hz or flicker” as recited by claim 19
Kubota discloses in the analogous art of phototherapy for myopia treatment [see para 13… “In some embodiments, a device to stimulate to the retina is configured to project one or more images on the retina that falls outside the fovea.” And para 84… “The device as described herein can be used to treat advancement of refractive error such as myopia”] known parameters used include a dynamic image with modulation frequency of 1- 500 Hz [see para 13… “The projected image may comprise a still image or a dynamic image, for example with a refresh rate in the range from 1 Hz to 500 Hz.”]
Since Tuan in view of Lemoff is silent as to many of the details of the fixation target images and the photo-bio-stimulation light, and Kubota discloses a known parameters for addressing myopia in the eye, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to modify Tuan in view of Lemoff to have the images move (i.e. claims 11 and 14) and to use a modulation frequency between 1-500 Hz as these are known parameters for addressing myopia in the eye.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Kubota by using a frequency of 20-60Hz (i.e. claim 19) as this is a subset of frequencies disclosed by Tuan in view of Kubota for addressing myopia in the eye.
Regarding claim 22:
Tuan in view of Lemoff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Tuan in view of Lemoff discloses optical system including lenses and mirror through which the images on the eye are directed to the retina [see para 15… “A femtoprojector includes an image source and an optical system. The image source may be a display chip that includes an array of light-emitting pixels. A light emitting diode (LED) array is an example of a display chip. The optical system includes lenses and/or mirrors that focus light from the image source onto the retina.”].
However, Tuan in view of Lemoff fails to disclose “one or more of, an eyewear frame, instrument housing a filter, an electronic display, a see-through near eye display, a non-see-through near eye display, a pin mirror, a waveguide, one or more light-emitting pixels, one or more microlens, or one or more microlens array”.
Kubota discloses in the analogous art of phototherapy for myopia treatment [see para 13… “In some embodiments, a device to stimulate to the retina is configured to project one or more images on the retina” And para 84… “The device as described herein can be used to treat advancement of refractive error such as myopia”] micro lens arrays are a known lens structure for delivering images to the retina [see para 24… “FIG. 2A shows OLED micro displays embedded into a soft contact lens, optically coupled with micro lens arrays for projecting images with myopic defocus on the periphery of the retina of a wearer”].
Since Tuan in view of Lemoff is silent as to the exact lens structure and Kubota discloses a micro-lenses array is a known structure to deliver images to the retina, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tuan in view of Lemoff’s lens structure to include a micro-lenses array similar to Kubota as this is a known structure to deliver images to the retina.
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tedford et al (US 20160067086) hereafter known as Tedford.
Tuan in view of Lemoff discloses the invention substantially as recited in claim 1.
However, Tuan in view of Lemoff fails to disclose “one or more bio-feedback sensors to detect and/or measure blink rate, pupil size, eye movement, or eye location.” as recited by claim 27 or “one or more of, an eye tracker, a timer, software, a controller, a processor, an alarm, wireless communication, a communication system, memory, a timer, a timed light, a switch, eye location sensor(s), retinal location sensor(s), cornea location sensor(s), iris location sensor(s), cornea light reflex location sensor(s), iris light reflex location sensor(s), light intensity sensor(s), or a camera.”
Tedford discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmic phototherapy [See para 3... “The present disclosure relates to an ophthalmic phototherapy device and an associated treatment methods using non-invasive light therapy. In addition, the present present disclosure is related to devices and methods for exposing an eye to selected wavelengths of light to promote the healing of damaged or diseased eye tissue.”] including a sensor that includes a camera that obtains pupil size in the form of obtaining the pupil diameter to provide feedback to controller of a light for the purpose of controlling the desired dosage of light to the retina [see para 99 of Tedford... “the logic circuit is responsive to signals indicating the spatial position or orientation of the patient's eye (e.g., where the patient is looking) This may be accomplished through the use of one or more cameras (for example, camera 754 of FIG. 7) and associated software algorithms. Supplementary emitters in infrared or other wavelengths may be used as illumination sources to facilitate the eye-tracking. Alternatively, commercially available eye-tracking components or algorithms may be incorporated into the device, partially or in entirety. In at least some embodiments, the logic circuit may utilize the eye-orientation signal to adjust the device output spatially to maintain the appropriate exposure on previously identified target areas.” and para 101… “the device contains one or more cameras (for example, camera 754 of FIG. 7) and associated software algorithms for measuring the diameter of a patient's pupil. This measurement may be performed once, periodically, or continually. The logic circuit may then use the pupil diameter measurement signal to adjust treatment parameters to achieve the desired dosage on the retina.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tuan in view of Lemoff to include a sensor that measures the pupil’s size and controls the light source similarly to that of Tedford (i.e. thereby reciting “one or more bio-feedback sensors to detect and/or measure blink rate, pupil size, eye movement, or eye location.” and “a camera”) for the purpose of providing the appropriate dosage of light to the retina.
Conclusion
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