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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/12/2026. Currently claims 1-16, 18-23 and 26-32 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 5/12/2026, with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 112 of claims 2-4, 6-8 and 30-32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 of 2-4, 6-8 and 30-32 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-13, filed 5/12/2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of
claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 12-16, 18-22, 27 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota
claim(s) 2-3 and 23 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota in view of Zhou
claim(s) 10-11 and 26 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota in view of Kubota II
claim(s) 28 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota in view of Bahmani
have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous prior art rejections of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-16, 18-23 and 26-28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-13, filed 5/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 30-31 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan in view of Kubota in view of Zhou 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Kessel et al (US 20110202114).
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) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessel et al (US 20110202114) hereafter known as Kessel.
Independent claim:
Claim 30:
A method for treating one or more pathologies of a subject using ocular photo-bio-stimulation light [see abstract… “The present invention provides a means and a system for the prevention, treatment and/or amelioration of a disease and/or disorder which is either related to a lens of an eye and/or which may benefit from the treatment of said lens” and para 8…. “Our invention, a simple light-based non-invasive method, provides a solution for the problem of lack of a non-invasive, permanent and pain-free cure for presbyopia, prevention and treatment of cataracts and other diseases and disorders of the eye.”], the method comprising:
treating a subject with ocular photo-bio-stimulation light during at least one ocular light therapy session, wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light is provided by one or more ocular photo-bio-stimulation light sources [see Fig. 15B element 20 and para 291… “FIG. 15B illustrates a wide collimated beam 20 with normal incidence on the eye.” and para 330… “the method comprising the exposure of said lens to radiation of a wavelength substantially between 320 nm and 800 nm,”]
and wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light treatment lasts between .000001 to 10000 seconds during the at least one ocular light therapy session [see para 264… “Also provided is a method of providing optimum benefit of treatment while minimizing the risk of damage consisting of applying exposure to light of duration 0.000001 second to 10000 seconds with a spectral composition ranging from white light to one or more selected spectral bands of visible light, including such band or bands that most optimally fit the aborption peak or peaks of one or more retinal photopigments, including the photopigments of the rod and the cone photoreceptors and the photopigments of the retinal ganglion cells or any combination of the photopigments of the rods, cones, ganglion cells, and other light-sensitive cells of the eye”];
protecting an entire fovea and all or a portion of a macula of an eye of the subject from all or some of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light by using an optical stop or a filtered stop located between the one or more ocular photo-bio-stimulation light sources and the subject's eye, and wherein the optical stop or the filtered stop are configured to form, cast, or impart, a protective image or shadow over the entire fovea and the all or the portion of the macula of the subject's eye [see Fig. 15B element 22 which is at least an optical stop and element 21 is a protective shadow as claimed and para 291… “A protective stop 22 has been placed in the eye, at the conjugate position of the cornea-lens system in order to be imaged at the retina, as a shadow region to protect the fovea during treatment. The protective stop 22 can be moved relative to the optical axis to account for varying angle-alpha and fovea locations.”]; and
applying more ocular bio-photo-stimulation illumination or more intense ocular photo-biostimulation light to a peripheral retina of the subject's eye compared to a central retina of the subject's eye [see Fig. 15B which shows the fovea being covered in a shadow while the periphery of the retina not being covered, thus more of illumination to the periphery];
wherein the method is operative to treat the one or more pathologies of the subject [see abstract… “The present invention provides a means and a system for the prevention, treatment and/or amelioration of a disease and/or disorder which is either related to a lens of an eye and/or which may benefit from the treatment of said lens” and para 8…. “Our invention, a simple light-based non-invasive method, provides a solution for the problem of lack of a non-invasive, permanent and pain-free cure for presbyopia, prevention and treatment of cataracts and other diseases and disorders of the eye.”].
However, Kessel fails to disclose “wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light treatment lasts for 60 minutes or less during the at least one ocular light therapy session”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kessel by making the duration of the light treatment last 1 to 3600 seconds (i.e. light treatment last for 60 minutes or less) because this is a subset of .000001 -10000 second duration range disclosed by Kessel.
Claim 31: see rejection to claim 30 above and see para 8 of Kessel [see… “Our invention, a simple light-based non-invasive method, provides a solution for the problem of lack of a non-invasive, permanent and pain-free cure for presbyopia, prevention and treatment of cataracts and other diseases and disorders of the eye.”] which discloses preventing / treating cataract formation as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16, 18-23 and 26-32 are allowed.
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 method for slowing or stopping myopia progression of a subject’s eye during at least one ocular light therapy session. The closest prior art is Tuan in view of Kubota. Tuan in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed as outlined in the final rejection mailed on 2/13/2026. However, Tuan in view of Kubota fails to fully disclose “one or more of, blocking, reducing, or eliminating, ocular photo-bio-stimulation light directed towards a central retina of the subject's eye, such that an entire fovea of the subject's eye is fully or partially protected from the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light” and “applying more ocular photo-bio-stimulation illumination or more intense ocular photo-bio-stimulation light to a peripheral retina of the subject's eye compared to the central retina”. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Tuan in view of Kubota obviates these deficiencies. It is important to note that the missing limitations by themselves do not overcome the prior art, but rather it is the combination of missing limitations with all the limitations of claim 1 combined together that defines the invention over the prior art. For example, Kessel discloses blocking the entire fovea and applying more ocular bio-photo-stimulation illumination to a peripheral retina [see Fig. 15B and para 291], but Kessel doesn’t disclose a step of providing a myopia control lens as claimed or provide proper motivation to be combined with Tuan in view of Kubota. Therefore, the combination of limitations recited by claim 1 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
Prosecution Insights