DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that there would be no reasonable motivation to combine the teachings of Altshuler and Pearl, since the laser of Pearl is low-power while the laser of Altshuler is high power. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The art of Altshuler is used to teach majority of the Applicant’s claims, including the claim elements related to the laser and its power. Pearl is art in the same field of endeavor, i.e. laser brushes for treating skin disease/promoting hair growth, but is only relied upon to teach that it is known to employ a beam splitter in these types of systems, for the purpose of allowing the individual laser to simultaneously provide multiple laser beams which are distributed across a segment of an individual's scalp. Again, Peal is not relied upon to teach anything about the type of laser used or the power it uses.
The Applicant next argues that there would be no reasonable rationale to modify the art of Altshuler and Pearl with the art of Elliot. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The art of Elliot teaches a means for applying light the scalp in order to treat skin disorders, as also taught by Altshuler and Pearl. Having the light source external to the application means, as taught by Elliot, would be advantageous since it allows the system to have multiple light and power sources available to aid in treatment of the user. It is also an alternative configuration, known in the art of laser hair treatment devices, to transmit laser light to a hand-held applicator, i.e. there are only two options, either the light source is located internally within the applicator or external to the applicator. Both are known configurations used in similar devices and it would be obvious to use/try either.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments relating to the beam expander have been considered persuasive. A new rejection is made in view of Shanks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “means for splitting” in claim 1 is being interpreted as mirrors/lens/apertures (page 12 of the specification) or a polarizing beam splitter or any other suitable means used to split the laser beam (page 14 of the specification)
The “output means” in claim 1 is being interpreted as a spacer tube, a hollow waveguide, an optical fiber, or a lens/window (see claims 3-4)
The “means for receiving” in claims 1 and 14 is being interpreted as an optical fiber and/or a free space beam path, wherein the latter may include one or more mirrors and/or lens (page 11 of the specification)
The “beam expanding means” in claim 26 is being interpreted as beam expanding lenses (page 21 of the specification)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 3-15, 17, 23-25, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler (US 20040147984 A1) in view of Pearl (US 20070150030 A1) in view of Elliott (US 20070179574 A1), and in further view of Shanks (US 5514127 A).
In regards to claim 1, Altshuler discloses an applicator for ameliorating alopecia, for improving quality, color and/or density of hair, and/or for improving a condition of a scalp of a person by laser light (Abstract and Par. 0004 discloses a laser brush for improving hair growth), comprising:
means for receiving the at least one laser beam from a source (Par. 0084 discloses receiving light from an optical fiber; see 112f interpretation above);
at least two output means (Par. 0104 and Fig 5A-B show output means/projections, 30), each adapted to apply at least one of the at least two partial laser beams directly to the scalp or other tissue surface of the person (Par. 0104 discloses the projections have a light source running through them to emit light from the projection/bristle. Fig 5A shows the light being applied directly to the skin, i.e. tissue).
wherein the at least two output means are adapted such that hair can be accommodated at least partly in between them (Par. 0111 disclose the hair can be accommodated between the projections/bristles of the brush);
wherein the at least two output means are adapted to be placed on a tissue surface of the person (Par. 0102 discloses the device is a skin-contacting device);
wherein the power density of individual laser pulses in each partial laser beam is greater than 10 W/cm2 (Par. 0080).
Altshuler does not disclose a means for splitting at least one laser beam into at least two partial laser beams. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pearl discloses a laser brush for promoting hair growth (Abstract) wherein a means for splitting at least one laser beam into at least two partial laser beams (Par. 0017) in order to allow the individual laser to simultaneously provide multiple laser beams which are distributed across a segment of an individual's scalp.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Altshuler and modified them by having the device comprise a beam splitter, as taught and suggested by Pearl, in order to allow the individual laser to simultaneously provide multiple laser beams which are distributed across a segment of an individual's scalp.
The combined teachings of Altshuler and Peal do not disclose wherein the receiving means is an external element to the applicator. However, in the same field of endeavor, Elliott teaches a source for providing phototherapy to the scalp of a user (Par. 0003) wherein the phototherapy radiation source is inside of an external source and is received by the applicator (Par. 0005-0007 and Claim 1) in order to allow the device to house multiple radiation and power means inside of the external source for potential use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Altshuler and Pearl and modified them by having the receiving means is an external element to the applicator, as taught and suggested by Elliott, in order to allow the device to house multiple radiation and power means inside of the external source for potential use. Furthermore, Elliot discloses that both internal or external light sources are known in similar hair/scalp treatment devices (“the device including a housing having an interior containing a source of ultra-violet radiation or being adapted to receive ultra-violet radiation from an external source”), making it obvious to substitute the internal light source taught by Altshuler with the external light source taught by Elliot as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtained predictable results, as taught by Elliot.
The combined teachings of Altshuler, Pearl, and Elliot disclose a beam splitter; however, they do not teach a beam expander placed before the beam splitter. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shanks teaches a laser system for applying an irradiating beam to a particular area (Abstract), wherein the beam is passed through a beam expander before going through a beam splitter (Col 2, lines 60-68) in order to enhance the laser beam (Col 2, lines 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Altshuler, Pearl, and Elliot and modified them by having the beam pass through a beam expander before going through a beam splitter, as taught and suggested by Shanks, in order to enhance the laser beam (Col 2, lines 45-55 of Shanks).
In regards to claim 3, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the output means comprises at least one of: a spacer tube, a hollow waveguide and an optical fiber (Par 0092 of Altshuler discloses using an optical fiber).
In regards to claim 4, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the output means comprises at least one of: an output lens and a window that is transparent with respect to the at least one laser beam (Par. 0103 of Altshuler discloses a contact window).
In regards to claim 5, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the output means is one or more of flexible and elastic (Par. 0093 and 0102 of Altshuler).
In regards to claim 6, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, except for wherein at least a portion of at least one of the output means is releasably attached to the applicator.
However, Pearl does further go on to teach that the output means in releasably attached to the applicator (Fig 13 a and Par. 0093-0094 of Pearl) in order to allow for easy attachment/detachment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Altshuler, Pearl, Elliot, and Shanks and modified them by having the attachment releasably attached, as taught by Pearl, in order to allow for easy attachment/detachment
In regards to claim 7 and 23, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the applicator is adapted such that the at least two partial laser beams are applied to at least 50% (or 100%)of a target area, Page 2 of 6Application No.Docket No.when the applicator is moved over the target area along a preferred direction of movement (Altshuler discloses the brush being applied to the hair and skin of the user and it could be used on anywhere from 0-100% of the targeted area depending the on the user’s needs).
In regards to claim 8 and 24, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the applicator is adapted such that the at least two partial laser beams are applied with an overlap of at most 50% (or 0%) when the applicator is moved over a target area along a preferred direction of movement (Altshuler discloses in Par. 0013-0014 that the user can move the brush over the skin as needed).
In regards to claim 9, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 7, further comprising an indication of the preferred direction of movement, wherein the indication is perceivable by a user at least while the at least two partial laser beams are applied to the person (Par. 0013-0014 of Altshuler).
In regards to claim 10 and 13, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 7, except for wherein the at least two output means are arranged in at least one column comprising N output means, with an average distance l between the N output means, the N output means adapted to apply partial laser beams of average diameter D and wherein the preferred direction of movement of the applicator is defined by an angle with respect to the at least one column in the range of 0.5 α to 1.5 α, wherein sin α = D/l; and wherein the two-dimensional pattern of points is obtainable, from a column of points with an average distance / between the points, by translating one or more of the points of the column along a direction having an angle a with respect to the column, wherein sin α = D/l
However, Pearl does go on to further teach one column of output means, 7, having an average distance and diameter (Fig 1 and Fig 3), wherein moving the comb down the hair thus causing an angle to exist between the column of output means and the scalp/hair of the user (Par. 0067)and wherein column of output means 7 having an average diameter and distance between the points, it is also possible to obtain a pattern by translating the column of output means 7 (Fig 1C) in order to provide the best arrangement for targeting the scalp and applying light properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Altshuler, Pearl, Elliot, and Shanks and modified them by having this arrangement, as taught and suggested by Pearl, in order to provide the best arrangement for targeting the scalp and applying light properly.
In regards to claim 11, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 except for disclosing the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the at least two output means are arranged in a plurality of columns and rows essentially perpendicular to each other.
However, Pearl does go on to teach brush having two columns and several rows (Fig 1C) in order to allow for the light to be evenly and broadly applied to the scalp. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Altshuler, Pearl, Elliot, and Shanks and modified them by having the brush have two columns and several rows, as taught by Pearl, in order to allow for the light to be evenly and broadly applied to the scalp.
In regards to claim 12, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks disclose the applicator according to claim 11, wherein a first column comprises N output means, with an average distance l between the N output means, the N output means adapted to apply partial laser beams of average diameter D, wherein the first column is spaced from an adjacent second column of output means by a distance in the range of 0.5 L to 1.5 L, preferably 0.8 L to 1.2 L, more preferably 0.9 L to 1.1 L, most preferably 0.95 L to 1.05 L, wherein
L
=
D
1
-
D
2
l
2
However, Peal does go on to show in Fig 1c one column of output means, 7, having an average distance and diameter, and Page 3 of 6Application No.Pearl goes on to show in Fig 1CDocket No. the first column spaced from the second column by a distance and also shows the output means having an average distance, l, between the different output means and also having an average diameter, D, to emit the beam, thus satisfying the Applicant’s equation, in order to apply the laser means in a desirable manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Altshuler, Pearl, Elliot, and Shanks and modified them by having the brush have this configuration, as taught and suggested by Pearl, in order to apply the laser means in a desirable manner.
In regards to claim 14, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the applicator further comprises at least one of: means for receiving the at least one laser beam, in particular from one or more of an articulated arm and fiber; reflective means (Par. 0032 of Altshuler discloses reflective means), in particular a plurality of mirror segments; a plurality of apertures, each aperture corresponding to at least one partial laser beam; and a plurality of lenses, each lens corresponding to at least one partial laser beam.
In regards to claim 15, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the applicator comprises one or more of a flat mirror and a plurality of hexagonal lenses (Par. 0102 of Altshuler).
In regards to claim 17, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose a method for ameliorating alopecia, for at least one of: improving one or more of quality, color and density of hair, and improving a condition of a scalp of a person by laser light, comprising the use of an applicator according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
In regards to claim 25, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the at least two output means are adapted to direct the partial laser beams to one or more of the scalp and the tissue surface of the person along parallel axes (Abstract of Altshuler – also taught in Pearl).
In regards to claims 27 and 28, the combined teachings of Altshuler, Peal, Elliott, and Shanks as applied to claim 1 disclose the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the power density of individual laser pulses is greater than 100 W/cm2 or greater than 1000 W/cm2. (Par. 0080 of Altshuler).
Altshuler discloses the claimed invention except for the power density being over 100 w/cm2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the power density be higher than this, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SKYLAR LINDSEY CHRISTIANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:30 EST.
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 on (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.
/S.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights