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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/23/2026. Currently claims 1-14, 16-22 and 25-35 are pending with claims 31-32 withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-14, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 4, 10 and 12-13 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Kubota have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 103 rejections of claims 4, 10 and 12-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-14, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11, 19, 21-23, 27 and 29 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff
claim(s) 5-6 and 28 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Kubota
claim(s) 14 and 30 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Luttrull in view of Sims
claim(s) 17-18 and 20 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Kubota II
claim(s) 16 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Kubota in view of Kubota II
claim(s) 25 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Kubota in view of Bahmani
claim(s) 26 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Lemoff in view of Kubota in view of Bahmani
have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Zhou et al (US 20220107508) and Butzloff et al (US 20180345034).
Affidavits/ Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 1/23/2026 in combination with the amendments is sufficient to overcome the previous 103 rejection(s) of claims 1-14, 16-22, 25-30. However, a new rejection under a new grounds with new prior art for specifically claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 14, 16-22, 25-30 has been raised based on the amendments as outlined below.
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) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 16-17, 19-22, 27-29 and 33-35 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 Butzloff.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 1:
Zhou discloses:
A system for applying ocular light therapy to an eye of a subject [see Fig. 4A-4B and abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression”], the system comprising:
one or more light sources configured to apply ocular photo-bio-stimulation light to a retina of the eye of the subject [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 subject [see Fig. 4A-4B which shows the dotted line going to the center of the retina (i.e. the macula)],
one or more optics located between the one or more light sources and the eye of the subject [see Figs. 4A-4B elements 410 and para 96… “micro-lenses 410 imprinted or molded or embedded there”],
wherein the one or more optics are configured to form one or more of, an image, a part of an image, or a shadow, to cover and protect part or all of the macula of the eye of the subject [see Figs. 4A-4B and para 96… “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… “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… “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 microlenses (i.e. one or more optics) that project micro-reticles (i.e. image) that together block light to the peripheral of the retina and the paracentral part of the retina (i.e. at least outer boundaries of macula or part of the macula),
wherein the one or more optics, the image, the part of the image, or the shadow, are located, or configured to appear to be located, along a line of sight of the eye of the subject [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. line of sight)],
and wherein the one or more of, the image, the part of an image, or the shadow, are surrounded by the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light when the one or more light sources are applying the ocular photo-biostimulation light to the retina of the eye of the subject [see Fig. 4A-4B and 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.” Which describe the light as at least partially surrounding at the image/shadow]
However, Zhou fails is silent as to the details of the light and thus fails to disclose
“and wherein light wavelengths of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light are within a range of one or more of, 450nm - 500nm, 480nm +/- 30nm, 500nm +/- 30nm, 530nm +/- 20nm, 575nm +/-30nm, 600nm - 700nm, 700nm - 730nm, or 830nm +/- 30nm” 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. photo-bio-stimulation light sources) with an illumination that has upper range of 30000 lux [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 8… “the illuminator is configured to provide illuminance values from about 2,000 lux to about 30,000 lux”] that can illuminate human eyes with at least 100 lux with a wavelength of 640-690 nm 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 includes diodes capable of illuminance value of up 30000 lux that can produce 640-690 nm and at least 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.
Dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, see rejection to claim 1 which discloses Zhou in view of Butzloff as blocking light at the edge of the macula.
Regarding claim 3, see rejection to claim 1 above and 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 is a fixation target as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-6, 16, 27-28:
Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1, 3 and wherein the one or more optics comprise a fixation target as recited by claim 27 [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].
However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose “wherein the fixation target comprises or is in optical communication with a fine-tuned fixation target, and wherein the fine-tuned fixation target is configured to appear to be located within an interior region of the fixation target or the full protective image” as recited by claim 5, “wherein the fine-tuned fixation target is one or more of, a different color, a different color tone, a different color shade, or a different lack of color, compared to the fixation target, and wherein the fine-tuned fixation target is a cross hair or a spot” as recited by claim 6, “wherein the fined-tuned fixation target is in optical communication with a micro-lens or micro-lens array” as recited by claim 16, “wherein a fine-tuned fixation target is located or configured to appear to be located within an outer perimeter of the fixation target” as recited by claim 27 or “wherein the system is configured to make the fine-tuned fixation target appear in focus and at a distance relative to the subject” as recited by claim 28.
Another embodiment of Zhou discloses combining different embodiments including the embodiment of Zhou discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above that includes a reticle fixation target with a reticle fine-tuned fixation target that has thinner hash marks than the fixation target and appears inside the area of the fixation target [see Fig. 16A-16B element 1608 (i.e. fixation target), element 1610 (i.e. fine-tuned fixation target) of Zhou and para 146 of Zhou… “FIG. 16A is a front view of a spectacle which can have different basic spectacle lens or lens combination designs as disclosed in FIGS. 4A-B to FIGS. 13A-B. FIG. 16B shows two cross sectional views of the same micro-toric-lens 1610 together with its corresponding micro-reticle 1608. The left portion of FIG. 16B shows the cross sectional view along the stronger focusing power direction and the right portion of FIG. 16B shows the cross sectional view along the less strong focusing power direction. The thicker solid hash patterns 1608 in FIG. 16A represent micro-reticles with the hash pattern lines along the radial (or meridional) and the circumferential directions, and the thinner ellipses 1610 represent the micro-toric-lenses which are arranged between the micro-reticles and the wearer's eye pupil as part of the spectacle lens or lens combination.”] and that the scope Zhou’s invention includes modifications and permutations of the various embodiments which is understood to include combinations of different embodiments [see paras 230-231 of Zhou]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Butzloff by including a fine-tuned target that similar to that disclosed by Fig. 16 of Zhou (i.e. thereby fully reciting claims 5-6, 16, 27-28) because this is merely a subcombination of combinations disclosed within the scope of Zhou.
Regarding claim 7:
Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose the exact size of the fixation target and thus fails to disclose “wherein the fixation target is between 3mm and 15mm in diameter” as recited by claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Butzloff full protective image is between 3mm and 15mm in diameter because absent unpredictable results such a modification is a mere change in size/proportion which has been deemed to be an obvious modification [see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)].
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 4A-4B of Zhou and para 96 of Zhou [see “FIGS. 4A-4B show one embodiment of the present invention wherein the integrated recticle(s) include multiple micro-reticles, and wherein the reticle focuser include micro-lenses located on or as part of a single vision correction spectacle lens. In this embodiment, each single vision correction spectacle lens 402”] disclose the system as including spectacles (i.e. eyewear).
Regarding claim 9, see para 208 of Zhou [see “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) or colored with different transparency percentages (i.e. contrasting color of photo-bio-stimulation light)
Regarding claim 11:
Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose the exact size of the fixation target and thus fails to disclose “wherein the full protective image is between 1.5mm and 5.5mm in diameter”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Butzloff full protective image is between 1.5mm and 5.5mm in diameter because absent unpredictable results such a modification is a mere change in size/proportion which has been deemed to be an obvious modification [see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)].
Regarding claim 17, see rejection to claim 1 above which cites para 8 of Butzloff that discloses capability to produce an illuminance of up to 30000 lux [see “the illuminator is configured to provide illuminance values from about 2,000 lux to about 30,000 lux, with a nominal indirect total combined light exposure of about 9000 lux”]
Regarding claim 19, see rejection to claims 1 and 3 above and Fig. 4A-4B element 408 of Zhou which disclose the image of reticle is a fixation target. Additionally, para 208 of Zhou [see “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.”] discloses the fixation target (which is supported by the microlenses [i.e. optics]) are opaque to light (i.e. opaque object) or can act as an optical filter as recited by claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see Fig. 4A-4B and 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.”] which disclose an embedded micro-reticle (i.e. fixation target) which is understood to be a fixed fixation target.
Regarding claim 21, see Fig. 4A-4B elements 402 of Zhou and abstract of Zhou [see “Spectacles that control myopia progression have a central zone that achieves foveal vision correction”] and para 96 of Zhou [see “each single vision correction spectacle lens 402”] which disclose an ophthalmic lens that is a myopia control lens. Also, the lens is worn (or at the very least capable of being worn).
Regarding claim 22, see abstract of Zhou [see “Spectacles that control myopia progression have a central zone that achieves foveal vision correction”] which discloses Zhou in view of Butzloff at least treats myopia progression.
Regarding claim 29, see rejection to claim 1 above and 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 is a fixation target that is at least supported by the paired micro-lens (i.e. optics) and as shown in Fig. 4A-4B the fixation target (i.e. element 408) is support within or on element 402 (i.e. a lens housed by eyewear).
Regarding claim 33, see rejection to claim 1 which discloses a light source in the form of light diodes.
Regarding claim 34, see Fig. 4A-4B elements 402 of Zhou and abstract of Zhou [see “Spectacles that control myopia progression have a central zone that achieves foveal vision correction”] and para 96 of Zhou [see “each single vision correction spectacle lens 402”] which disclose a myopia control lens as claimed.
Regarding claim 35, see rejection to claim 1 above and 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 is a fixation target. Additionally, para 208 of Zhou [see “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.”] discloses the fixation target (which is supported by the microlenses [i.e. optics]) are opaque to light (i.e. an optical mask) or can act as an optical filter as recited by claim 35.
Claim(s) 14 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Butzloff as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Luttrull et al (US 20160339264) hereafter known as Luttrull in view of Sims et al (US 8684946) hereafter known as Sims et al (US 8684946) hereafter known as Sims.
Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 above.
However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose “wherein a distance of the fixation target to the eye of the subject is adjustable along the line of sight of the eye of the subject” as recited by claim 14 or “wherein the fixation target moves within a radius of an arc of the eye of the subject” as recited by claim 30.
Sims discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmic phototherapy [see abstract… “The present disclosure describes a psychophysical test to assess the cone photoreceptor pathway by determining the sensitivity of the cone photoreceptors. The test may be used to determine of a subject is suffering from, or is likely to suffer from, a disease state involving the fovea, parafovea, macula, neurological pathways used by these area to communicate with the visual processing centers in the brain and cone photoreceptors and/or ganglion cells.”] a known way of aligning a fixation target with the eye includes adjusting the x, y and z axes of the fixation target relative to the eye [see Col. 4 lines 55-65… “During the testing procedure, the subject is presented with a fixation target. The fixation target is presented on a larger adapting field which serves as the background. The subject is instructed to look at the center of the fixation target. The subject's eye may be aligned with the fixation target so that the foveal center is in alignment with the fixation target by adjustment of the fixation target in the x, y and/or z axes or adjustment of the subject's eye in the x, y and/or z axes. In one embodiment, the fixation target is a square formed by four cross hairs. In this embodiment, the subject is instructed to look at the center of the square.”]
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 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 (i.e. fixation target is adjustable along the line of sight of the eye of the subject and capable of moving the fixation target within a radius of an arc of 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 Zhou in view of Butzloff’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 14 and 30) because as taught by Sims this will provide the benefit of allowing a user to align the fixation target with the eye being treated.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Butzloff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubota et al (US 20210031051) hereafter known as Kubota II.
Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Tuan fails to disclose “wherein the ocular photo-bio stimulation light modulates or flickers” as recited by claim 18.
Kubota II discloses in the analogous art of phototherapy for myopia treatment [see abstract…. “A device to stimulate the retina comprises one or more light sources coupled to one or more optical elements” And para 84… “The device as described herein can be used to treat advancement of refractive error such as myopia”] a known light parameter includes modulating the light [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 Zhou in view of Butzloff is silent as to many of the details of the light source, and Kubota II 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 was filed to modify Zhou in view of Butzloff ’s diodes (i.e. light sources) to include light modulation similar to that disclosed by Kubota II as this is a known parameter for addressing myopia in the eye.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Butzloff as applied to claims 1,3 and 5 above, and further in view of Bahmani et al (US 20200108272) hereafter known as Bahmani.
Regarding claim 25:
Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1, 3 and 5 as outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose “wherein the system is configured to turn down an intensity of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light or turn off the ocular photo-biostimulation light, if the eye of the subject looks away for a specified period of time from the fixation target or the fine-tuned fixation target when the one or more light sources are applying the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light to the retina of the eye of the subject” as recited by claim 25.
Bahmani discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmological light therapy to address myopia [see abstract… “A method for application of light to one or more eyes (300) of a user is disclosed.” and para 28… “The method has many applications, such as the treatment of myopia”] including an electrooculogram or electroretinograph electrodes (i.e. a sensor) to determine a gaze direction and automatically turn of the light if the light is not positioned correctly to a user’s gaze (i.e. using a sensor that turns the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light off if the subject is not looking at the fine-tuned fixation target for a specific period of time) for the purpose of preventing light from falling on the wrong sensitive parts of the retinal [see para 69… “In another aspect, the electrooculogram (EOG) or the electroretinograph electrodes are housed in the spectacle frame 24 and temples, as discussed above. The EOG signals the gaze direction and enables automatic on/off switching of the light emitting source 34 according to the position of the eye 300. When the eye is looking straight relative to the light emitting source 34, the stimulation pattern falls on the optic disk 330. When the eye 300 is looking off-center, the pattern switches off, in order to not fall on the other light sensitive parts of retina 320 (see also US 20040070729 A1).”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Butzloff by including and using electrooculogram or electroretinograph to determine a user’s gaze to turn off the light if the individual is not looking at the fine-tuned target similar to that disclosed by Bahmani (i.e. reciting claim 25) as this prevent the wrong parts of the retina from receiving the light thereby leading one of ordinary skill to expect improved safety with the device.
Regarding claim 26:
Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose “wherein the fixation target comprises or is aligned and in optical communication with a fine-tuned fixation target, and wherein the system further comprises and/or is controlled by a sensor in communication with a processor, the sensor and/or processor operative to identify a location of the eye of the subject relative to the fixation target or the fined-tuned fixation target”
Another embodiment of Zhou discloses combining different embodiments including the embodiment of Zhou discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above that includes a reticle fixation target with a fine-tuned fixation target that has thinner hash marks than the fixation target and appears inside the area of the fixation target [see Fig. 16A-16B element 1608 (i.e. fixation target), element 1610 (i.e. fine-tuned fixation target) of Zhou and para 146 of Zhou… “FIG. 16A is a front view of a spectacle which can have different basic spectacle lens or lens combination designs as disclosed in FIGS. 4A-B to FIGS. 13A-B. FIG. 16B shows two cross sectional views of the same micro-toric-lens 1610 together with its corresponding micro-reticle 1608. The left portion of FIG. 16B shows the cross sectional view along the stronger focusing power direction and the right portion of FIG. 16B shows the cross sectional view along the less strong focusing power direction. The thicker solid hash patterns 1608 in FIG. 16A represent micro-reticles with the hash pattern lines along the radial (or meridional) and the circumferential directions, and the thinner ellipses 1610 represent the micro-toric-lenses which are arranged between the micro-reticles and the wearer's eye pupil as part of the spectacle lens or lens combination.”] and that the scope of Zhou’s invention includes modifications and permutations of the various embodiments which is understood to include combinations of different embodiments [see paras 230-231 of Zhou].
Bahmani discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmological light therapy to address myopia [see abstract… “A method for application of light to one or more eyes (300) of a user is disclosed.” and para 28… “The method has many applications, such as the treatment of myopia”] including an eye tracking system that establishes the pupil and direction of sight [see Fig. 2 elements 10 and para 47… “The lenses 25 have an eye tracking system 10 mounted on them to establish the position of pupil and the direction of sight.”] and a controller understood to control the eye tracking system [see Fig. 2 element 40 and para 103 [see “40 Controller”] for purpose of customizing the stimulation to a user [see para 73… “The controller can control the stimulation pattern according to external parameters such as environmental light level, time, etc. It can control the stimulation pattern according to internal parameters such as physiological factors, heart rate, temperature, pupil size, eye lid position, etc. It can control the stimulation pattern according to personalized information such as age, size, gender. etc.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Butzloff by including a fine-tuned target that similar to that disclosed by Fig. 16 of Zhou (i.e. thereby reciting wherein the fixation target comprises or is aligned and in optical communication with a fine-tuned fixation target) because this is merely a subcombination of combinations disclosed within the scope of Zhou.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Butzloff to include an eye tracking system and controller similarly to that disclosed by Bahmani (i.e. thereby reciting claim 26) to help customize the treatment to user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 is the broadest claim out of the allowable subject matter. Claim 4 recites a system for applying ocular light therapy to an eye of a subject. The closest prior art is Zhou in view of Butzloff. Zhou in view of Butzloff discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 (on which claim 4 is dependent on) as outlined above. However, Zhou in view of Butzloff fails to disclose “wherein the full protective image or the full protective shadow is partially or completely surrounded by a blended protective image or a blended protective shadow” or “wherein the blended protective image or the blended protective shadow is partially or completely surrounded by the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light” as recited by claim 4. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Zhou in view of Butzloff obviates this deficiency. It is important to note the allowability of claim 4 is not based on the missing limitations alone, but rather the missing limitations in combination with all the limitations of claim 4 (including those recited through dependency on the other claims) together. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations recited by claim 4 is neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art.
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