DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status: Claims 14-34 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-10 of the Remarks filed on December 31, 2025, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Brauns for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks, Applicant made an argument that 1) Wells teaches pulse widths ranging from 10 microseconds to 20 ms, but that Wells’ maximum pulse width of 20 ms represents only the minimum boundary of Applicant’s claimed range and that Wells provides no teaching or suggestion of pulse widths extending to 2 seconds as required by the amended claims. Applicant further argued that 2) Wells’ pulse width in combination of disclosed duty cycle is different from Applicant’s pulse width without a duty cycle. Applicant further argued that 3) function of Well’s pulse width and the function of Applicant’s pulse width are also different. Applicant further argued that 4) Wells power density up to 2.5 W/cm2 is far below the amended claims’ upper limit of 400 W/cm2 and that Wells cannot provide the high power densities required by the amended claims.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding argument 1), Claims 14 and 26 require “a pulse width from 20 ms to 2 seconds”, and Wells discloses a pulse width of 2 ms (para. [0177], [0232], [0124]). Therefore, Wells’ disclosure reads on the claimed limitation. Applicant’s argument that Wells does not disclose the upper limit of pulse width is not persuasive.
Regarding argument 2), in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., claimed pulse width with no duty cycle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument that Wells’ pulse parameter is different from that of Applicant’s due to Well’s disclosure of duty cycle is not persuasive, because the claim merely recites a pulse width from a claimed range but is absent of further details that Applicant is arguing.
Regarding argument 3), Applicant’s argument that Wells’ 20 ms pulse width is fundamentally different from Applicants’ 20 ms pulse width, which is designed to deliver therapeutic energy efficiently in a single pulse or short treatment rather than through repeated low-duty-cycle pulses over extended periods is not persuasive, because Claims 14 and 26 do not recite treatment time or other light parameters that reflect their argument.
Regarding argument 4), Claims 14 and 26 require “a power density of a maximum of 400 W/cm2”, and Wells discloses 2.5 W/cm2 (para. [0127]). Therefore, Wells’ disclosure reads on the claimed limitation. Applicant’s argument that Wells does not disclose the upper limit of power density is not persuasive.
On page 13 of the Remarks, regarding claims 21 and 22, Applicant made an argument that Wells’ teaching does not render obvious the claimed method of performing a second treatment after the peak of HSP expression in the context of the specific treatment parameters now claimed (pulse width from 20 ms to 2 seconds at claimed power density).
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
It is unclear why in the context of the specific treatment parameters now claimed, Wells’ teaching does not render obvious the claimed method of performing a second treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells, by configuring the second treatment time to be performed after the peak of the expression of HSP and including daily treatment times to the plurality of treatment times, since merely replicating the treatment step one or more additional times would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least until the desired outcome was achieved. For example, in Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29, 92 USPQ2d 1849, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit held that mere repetition of a known procedure until success is achieved was merely the logical result of common sense application of the maxim "try, try again." (see MPEP 2143).
On page 14 of the Remarks, regarding claim 34, Applicant made an argument that Ella’s teaching passive cooling is misplaced, because Ella’s teaching “a cooling device such as a sapphire plate or other active or passive cooling means” (para. [0030]) refers to external cooling devices, not the natural cooling properties of tissue itself as claimed.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Ella specifically teaches “passive cooling means” for tissue surface cooling (para. [0030]) which reads on the claim limitation “the target therapeutic region of tissue naturally cool downs by passive means including the tissue itself to decrease the temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue after inducing the expression of HSPs”. Ella’s “passive cooling means” does not indicate that it requires an external cooling device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 14, the limitations, “the minimum time” and “the maximum time”, are indefinite, because they lack antecedent basis.
Indefiniteness of claim 14 renders its dependent claims indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitations, the steps of “controlling the output of the optical energy …”, “increasing the temperature of the target region …”, and “inducing the expression of HSPs …”, have been repeatedly recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14, 15, 17-20, 23, 24, 26-27, 29, and 31-33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180).
Re Claim 14, Wells discloses a method for non-injurying heat shock stimulation of human or animal tissue comprising:
positioning a distal end of a handheld dermatological medical device at a region proximal a target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0140], handheld probe, para. [0261], [0262], handpiece system and figures 13A and 13B);
outputting optical energy from an optical laser of the handheld dermatological medical device at the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0261], [0262] and figures 13A and 13B);
controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue to increase a temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue for a period of time to a temperature range that is less than an injurying temperature (para. [0296] and [0297] discloses the increased temperature range) and induces an expression of heat shock proteins (HSPs) at the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0127], [0177], hsp70 expression), by outputting the optical energy at a power density of a maximum of 400 W/cm2 (para. [0127], [0131], [0133], 2.5 W/cm2, which reads on maximum of 400 W/cm2) for a pulse width of 20 msec (para. [0124], tunable pulse width from 10 μsec-20 msec);
increasing the temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue between 2-8 degrees C by control electronics of the optical laser controlling each of the power density and laser operating time range from the minimum time up to the maximum time of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0287], discloses apparatus with various wavelength ranges in para. [0278] is controlled to raise a temperature of the first area of tissue of the animal to between 41 and 46 degrees C. for between 1 second and 60 minutes; para. [0297] discloses the temperature control and treatment duration; para. [0287], [0297], discloses temperature ranges the tissue is increased to: between 41 and 46 degrees C, between 40 and 41 deg C, between 41 and 42 deg C, between 42 and 43 deg C, between 43 and 44 deg C, between 44 and 45 deg C – These are temperature increase by 2-8 degrees C.); and
inducing the expression of HSPs at less than the injurying temperature (para. [0127], [0140], [0177], hsp 70 induction with 2.5 W/cm2);
controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue to increase a temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue for a period of time to a temperature range that is less than an injurying temperature (para. [0296] and [0297] discloses the increased temperature range) and induces an expression of heat shock proteins (HSPs) at the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0127], [0177], hsp70 expression), by outputting the optical energy at a power density of a maximum of 400 W/cm2 (para. [0127], [0131], [0133], 2.5 W/cm2, which reads on maximum of 400 W/cm2) for a pulse width from 20 ms to 2 seconds (para. [0177], [0232], [0124], pulse width of 20 msec);
increasing the temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue between 2-8 degrees C by control electronics of the optical laser controlling each of the power density and pulse width of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0124], pulse width of 20 msec; para. [0127], [0140], [0177], hsp 70 induction with 2.5 W/cm2; para. [0287], discloses apparatus with various wavelength ranges in para. [0278] is controlled to raise a temperature of the first area of tissue of the animal to between 41 and 46 degrees C. for between 1 second and 60 minutes; para. [0297] discloses the temperature control and treatment duration; para. [0287], [0297], discloses temperature ranges the tissue is increased to: between 41 and 46 degrees C, between 40 and 41 deg C, between 41 and 42 deg C, between 42 and 43 deg C, between 43 and 44 deg C, between 44 and 45 deg C – These are temperature increase by 2-8 degrees C.); and
inducing the expression of HSPs at less than the injurying temperature (para. [0127], [0140], hsp 70 induction with 2.5 W/cm2).
Wells does not explicitly teach a pulse width from 20 ms to 2 seconds.
However, Wells discloses a pulse width of 20 ms (para. [0124], tunable pulse width from 10 μsec-20 msec). The pulse width of 20 ms overlaps with the endpoint of the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
“The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941).” MPEP 2144.05.
Re Claim 15, Wells discloses an application of the handheld treatment member is selected from the group consisting of: wrinkle reduction; acne reduction; skin tightening (para. [0022], face lift or other cosmetic surgery of the face); tissue heating (para. [0088], [0091], [0101], [0193], tissue heating); treatment of fibrous tissue (para. [0086], [0144], [0145], [0205], [0223]); treatment of vascular tissue (para. [0018], target highly vascularized tissue); and combinations thereof.
Re Claims 17, 18, and 19, Wells discloses that the wavelength is between 1850 nm - 1900 nm, between 1900-2450 nm, and between 1400-1900 nm (para. [0018], the laser radiation has a wavelength between about 1800 nm and about 2000 nm. In some such embodiments, the laser radiation has a wavelength between about 1830 nm and about 1950 nm. Some wavelengths used to obtain a 1-4 mm tissue-penetration depth are: around 1800-1840 nm or around 2200 nm in the infrared, [0124]).
Re Claim 20, Wells discloses that the steps of outputting the optical energy and controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue are performed a plurality of treatment times, including a first treatment time and a second treatment time, each of the plurality of treatment times (para. [0022], [0101], [0217], [0219], preconditioning and postconditioning protocols; para. [0296], [0297] discloses different treatment times – The claim doesn’t specify what constitutes “a first treatment time” or “a second treatment time”; therefore, these times can be arbitrary and be part of treatment times disclosed in the cited paragraphs.).
Re Claim 23, Wells discloses that an exposure of the optical energy output from the dermatological medical device at the target therapeutic region of tissue is between 2-10 seconds at one or more temperatures less than the injurying temperature (para. [0296], controlling a temperature of the first area of tissue of the animal to between 41 and 46 degrees C. for between 1 second and 60 minutes, [0297]).
Re Claim 24, Wells discloses that the target therapeutic region of tissue includes intact undamaged skin (para. [0022]).
Claims 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180) in view of Brauns et al. (WO 2011/011644).
Re Claim 26, Wells discloses a method for non-injurying heat shock stimulation of human or animal tissue comprising:
positioning a distal end of a handheld dermatological medical device at a region proximal a target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0140], handheld probe, para. [0261], [0262], handpiece system and figures 13A and 13B);
outputting optical energy from an optical laser of the handheld dermatological medical device at the target therapeutic region of tissue (figures 13A and 13B, para. [0261], [0262], [0278], the tissue-heating light radiation has a power level (e.g., in some embodiments, one to five watts) and a tunable wavelength (e.g., in some embodiments, IR light having a wavelength of between 1840 and 1870 nm, while, in other embodiments, light of any suitable wavelength including visible and ultraviolet, that provide the desired penetration depth and/or heating profile to enhance HSP production without excessive protein denaturing);
controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue to increase a temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue for a period of time to a temperature range that is less than an injurying temperature (para. [0296] and [0297] discloses the increased temperature range) and induces an expression of heat shock proteins (HSPs) at the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0127], [0177], hsp70 expression), by outputting the optical energy at a power density of a maximum of 400 W/cm2 (para. [0127], [0131], [0133], 2.5 W/cm2, which reads on maximum of 400 W/cm2) for a pulse width of 20 ms (para. [0124], tunable pulse width from 10 μsec-20 msec);
increasing the temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue between 2-8 degrees C by control electronics of the optical laser controlling each of the power density and pulse width of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0124], pulse width of 20 msec; para. [0127], [0140], [0177], hsp 70 induction with 2.5 W/cm2; para. [0287], discloses apparatus with various wavelength ranges in para. [0278] is controlled to raise a temperature of the first area of tissue of the animal to between 41 and 46 degrees C. for between 1 second and 60 minutes; para. [0297] discloses the temperature control and treatment duration; para. [0287], [0297], discloses temperature ranges the tissue is increased to: between 41 and 46 degrees C, between 40 and 41 deg C, between 41 and 42 deg C, between 42 and 43 deg C, between 43 and 44 deg C, between 44 and 45 deg C – These are temperature increase by 2-8 degrees C.); and
inducing the expression of HSPs at less than injurying temperature (para. [0127], [0140], [0177], hsp 70 induction with 2.5 W/cm2).
Wells does not explicitly teach a pulse width from 20 ms to 2 seconds.
However, Wells discloses a pulse width of 20 ms (para. [0124], tunable pulse width from 10 μsec-20 msec). The pulse width of 20 ms overlaps with the endpoint of the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
“The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941).” MPEP 2144.05.
Wells is silent regarding optical energy between 1400 nm and 1530 nm.
However, Brauns discloses a method for non-injurying heat shock stimulation of human (page 8, causing the release of significant amounts of heat shock proteins from inside cells through exposing the skin or other barrier tissue to a non-destructive laser treatment) and teaches outputting optical energy between 1400 nm and 1530 nm from an optical laser of the dermatological medical device at the target therapeutic region of tissue (page 9, contacting a subject with a laser exposure that can be delivered to the body directly or through lenses or fiber optic cables, and that can be delivered either externally or internally via a variety of mechanisms including endoscopes of all types and catheters; page 9, lasers for use in the methods of the invention include emits light in the range of visible light to infrared light, with wavelengths of about 500 nanometers to 3000 nanometers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells, by configuring optical energy to be between 1400 nm and 1530 nm, as taught by Brauns, for the purpose of providing the desired penetration depth and/or heating profile to enhance HSP production without excessive protein denaturing (Wells, para. [0261]).
Re Claim 27, Wells discloses an application of the handheld treatment member is selected from the group consisting of: wrinkle reduction (para. [0105] discloses US patent application 12/050,937 is incorporated herein by reference, which corresponds to Wells (US 8,202,268), col. 9, lines 8-45 of Bendett discloses infrared light can be used for fractional photothermolysis after which evidence of increased collagen production is shown and expression of heat shock protein 70, col. 7, line 42 – col. 8, line 6 of Bendett discloses fractional photothermolysis for cutaneous remodeling using microscopic patterns of thermal injury and reducing wrinkles); acne reduction; skin tightening (para. [0022], face lift or other cosmetic surgery of the face); tissue heating (para. [0088], [0091], [0101], [0193], tissue heating); treatment of fibrous tissue (para. [0086], [0144], [0145], [0205], [0223]); treatment of vascular tissue (para. [0018], target highly vascularized tissue); and combinations thereof.
Re Claim 29, Wells discloses that the steps of outputting the optical energy and controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue are performed a plurality of treatment times, including a first treatment time and a second treatment time, each of the plurality of treatment times (para. [0022], [0101], [0217], [0219], preconditioning and postconditioning protocols; para. [0296], [0297] discloses different treatment times – The claim doesn’t specify “a first treatment time” or “a second treatment time”; therefore, these times can be arbitrary and be part of treatment times disclosed in the cited paragraphs.).
Re Claim 30, Wells discloses that a peak of the expression of HSPs occur 1.5 hours to 48 hours after the first treatment time (para. [0011], peak hsp70 expression is biphasic, with maxima occurring between 8-12 hours and then approximately 24 hours after thermal stress).
Wells is silent regarding the plurality of treatment times including daily treatment times.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells, by including daily treatment times to the plurality of treatment times, since merely replicating the treatment step one or more additional times would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least until the desired outcome was achieved. For example, in Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29, 92 USPQ2d 1849, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit held that mere repetition of a known procedure until success is achieved was merely the logical result of common sense application of the maxim "try, try again." (see MPEP 2143).
Re Claim 31, Wells discloses that an exposure of the optical energy output from the dermatological medical device at the target therapeutic region of tissue is between 2-10 seconds at one or more temperatures less than the injurying temperature (para. [0296], controlling a temperature of the first area of tissue of the animal to between 41 and 46 degrees C. for between 1 second and 60 minutes, [0297]).
Re Claim 32, Wells discloses that the target therapeutic region of tissue includes intact undamaged skin (para. [0022]).
Claim 25 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180) in view of Altshuler et al. (US 2004/0093042).
Re Claim 25, Wells discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 14.
Wells discloses that the treatment includes tattoo removal, face lift or other cosmetic surgery of the face (para. [0022]).
Wells is silent regarding the target therapeutic region of tissue including wrinkles, and wherein controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue to induce the expression of heat shock protein at the target therapeutic region of tissue including the wrinkles.
Altshuler discloses heating of the subsurface region of tissue to a temperature of between 37.5 and 45° C may stimulate generation of new collagen and/or elastin (para. [0030]). Altshuler teaches expression of HSP70 (“Heat Shock Protein”) may be stimulated when the tissue is heated to between 41 and 42° C. for between 20 and 30 minutes (para. [0030]). Significant new collagen deposition, formation or rearrangement may be possible, which may improve skin appearance or texture, allowing wrinkles, fine lines, scars, stretch marks or other indicators to be removed (para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells, by configuring the target therapeutic region of tissue to include wrinkles, wherein controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue to induce the expression of heat shock protein at the target therapeutic region of tissue including the wrinkles, as taught by Altshuler, for the purpose of improving skin appearance and texture by new collagen deposition, formation, or rearrangement (para. [0030]).
Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180) as modified by Brauns et al. (WO 2011/011644), and further in view of Altshuler et al. (US 2004/0093042).
Re Claim 33, Wells as modified by Brauns discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 26.
Wells discloses that the treatment includes tattoo removal, face lift or other cosmetic surgery of the face (para. [0022]).
Wells is silent regarding the target therapeutic region of tissue including wrinkles, and wherein controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue to induce the expression of heat shock protein at the target therapeutic region of tissue including the wrinkles.
Altshuler discloses heating of the subsurface region of tissue to a temperature of between 37.5 and 45° C may stimulate generation of new collagen and/or elastin (para. [0030]). Altshuler teaches expression of HSP70 (“Heat Shock Protein”) may be stimulated when the tissue is heated to between 41 and 42° C. for between 20 and 30 minutes (para. [0030]). Significant new collagen deposition, formation or rearrangement may be possible, which may improve skin appearance or texture, allowing wrinkles, fine lines, scars, stretch marks or other indicators to be removed (para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells as modified by Brauns, by configuring the target therapeutic region of tissue to include wrinkles, wherein controlling the output of the optical energy at the target therapeutic region of tissue to induce the expression of heat shock protein at the target therapeutic region of tissue including the wrinkles, as taught by Altshuler, for the purpose of improving skin appearance and texture by new collagen deposition, formation, or rearrangement (para. [0030]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180).
Re Claims 21 and 22, Wells discloses that a peak of the expression of HSPs occur 1.5 hours to 48 hours after the first treatment time (para. [0011], peak hsp70 expression is biphasic, with maxima occurring between 8-12 hours and then approximately 24 hours after thermal stress).
Wells is silent regarding the second treatment time being performed after the peak of the expression of HSPs and the plurality of treatment times including daily treatment times.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells, by configuring the second treatment time to be performed after the peak of the expression of HSP and including daily treatment times to the plurality of treatment times, since merely replicating the treatment step one or more additional times would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least until the desired outcome was achieved. For example, in Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29, 92 USPQ2d 1849, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit held that mere repetition of a known procedure until success is achieved was merely the logical result of common sense application of the maxim "try, try again." (see MPEP 2143).
Claims 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180) in view of Altshuler et al. (US 2007/0038206), hereinafter “Altshuler”.
Re Claim 16, Wells discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 14.
Wells further discloses that the distal end of a handheld dermatological medical device includes an aperture (para. [0020], a masking apparatus having an aperture that controls a lateral extent of the dose of laser radiation.).
Wells is silent regarding the handheld dermatological medical device including at least one contact sensor that only allows the handheld dermatological medical device to operate when the aperture is in contact with the target therapeutic region of tissue.
However, Altshuler discloses photocosmetic device (abstract) and teaches that the handheld dermatological medical device including at least one contact sensor that only allows the handheld dermatological medical device to operate when the aperture is in contact with the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0083], [0089], contact sensors 360 for detecting contact with tissue. The contact sensors can be used to ensure that no light is emitted from photocosmetic device unless all of the sensors detect simultaneous contact with tissue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells, by adding to the handheld dermatological medical device at least one contact sensor that only allows the handheld dermatological medical device to operate when the aperture is in contact with the target therapeutic region of tissue, as taught by Altshuler, for the purpose of intelligent contact control and safe application of treatment light (para. [0089]).
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180), as modified by Brauns et al. (WO 2011/011644), and further in view of Altshuler et al. (US 2007/0038206), hereinafter “Altshuler”.
Re Claim 28, Wells further discloses that the distal end of a handheld dermatological medical device includes an aperture (para. [0020], a masking apparatus having an aperture that controls a lateral extent of the dose of laser radiation.).
Wells is silent regarding the handheld dermatological medical device including at least one contact sensor that only allows the handheld dermatological medical device to operate when the aperture is in contact with the target therapeutic region of tissue.
However, Altshuler discloses photocosmetic device (abstract) and teaches that the handheld dermatological medical device including at least one contact sensor that only allows the handheld dermatological medical device to operate when the aperture is in contact with the target therapeutic region of tissue (para. [0083], [0089], contact sensors 360 for detecting contact with tissue. The contact sensors can be used to ensure that no light is emitted from photocosmetic device unless all of the sensors detect simultaneous contact with tissue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells as modified by Brauns, by adding to the handheld dermatological medical device at least one contact sensor that only allows the handheld dermatological medical device to operate when the aperture is in contact with the target therapeutic region of tissue, as taught by Altshuler, for the purpose of intelligent contact control and safe application of treatment light (para. [0089]).
Claim 34 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (US 2010/0049180) as modified by Brauns et al. (WO 2011/011644), and further in view of Ella (US 20040077977 A1).
Re Claim 34, Wells as modified by Brauns discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 26.
Wells is silent regarding “wherein the target therapeutic region of tissue naturally cool downs by passive means including the tissue itself to decrease the temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue after inducing the expression of HSPs”.
However, Ella discloses a cooling device such as a sapphire plate or other active or passive cooling means is used to cool the tissue (para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wells as modified by Brauns, by having the target therapeutic region of tissue naturally cool downs by passive means including the tissue itself to decrease the temperature of the target therapeutic region of tissue after inducing the expression of HSPs, as taught by Ella, for the purpose of cooling the tissue (para. [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VYNN V HUH whose telephone number is (571)272-4684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./
Vynn Huh, January 7, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3792