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. Status of Claims Claims 1-18 are currently pending and under consideration. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 1, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because : “The method disclosed herein are designed to” in line 1-2 s hould be change s o that either “method” becomes “methods” or the “are” is changed to “is”; and “a thee step process” in line 3 should be changed to “a three step process”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “thee step” in ¶[ 0 2 ] should be changed to “three step”; “descried” in ¶[ 0 8 ] should be changed to “described”; “From time-to-time, the disclosure described herein in terms of example environments” in ¶[ 15 ] is unclear and should be rewritten for clarity; “works by hearing up” in ¶[ 56] should be rewritten as “works by heating up” . Appropriate correction is required ; and “an pen” in ¶[ 60 ] should be changed to “a pen” . The use of the term s “ Levulan ” in ¶[ 75 ] , “ Limelight ” which appears 12 times between ¶[ 77 ] - ¶[ 87 ] , “ Cutera ” in ¶[ 77 ] , “ Rejuvenize Peel ” which appears 3 times in ¶[ 77 ] - ¶[ 78 ] , “ SkinMedica ” in ¶[ 77 ] , and “ Allergan ” in ¶[ 77 ] , which are trade name s or a mark s used in commerce, ha ve been noted in this application. The term s should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term s should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: For the limitation of “ grading the skin on the following factors: age, ethnicity, pigmentation, texture, tone, and lifestyle ” in claim 5 , the specification does not seem to provide antecedent basis for the limitation. For the limitation of “wherein intense pulse light wavelength has a mid-range 560 nanometer peak with a pulse duration time of 5-29 milliseconds and a fluence between 14-18 joules per centimeter squared” in claim 14, the specification does not seem to provide antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163.03(V) states the following: “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated.” Claim 5 recites the limitation of “evaluating of the skin further includes grading the skin on the following factors: age, ethnicity, pigmentation , texture, ton e, and lifestyle . ” As - filed, the specification discloses classifying skin color using the Fitzpatrick scale along with evaluating for skin conditions and factors such as age spots , pigmentation, and the patient’s lifestyle in ¶[ 6 4 ] - ¶[ 68 ] . However, as-filed the specification does not provide any form of “grading” based on age, ethnicity, and texture. Although tone is referenced, ethnicity can contain a broad range of factors encompassing skin tone, genetic traits, etc. As such, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention since as-filed the specification does not describe enough information on the genus of grading the skin based on age, ethnicity, and texture. For the purpose of examination, grading based on ethnicity is interpretated as grading based on skin tone, pigmentation, or other genetic traits. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 7, 1 4 -18 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation “ the laser ” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim when dependent on claim 1. It is noted that if dependency for claim 7 is amended to depend only from claim 2, this rejection would be overcome. Regarding c laim 14 , the limitation of “ a mid-range 560 nanometer peak ” seems unclear. It seems unclear how a 560 nm peak would have a mid-range as this is a single number. For the purpose of examination, “mid-range 560 nanometers” has been interpreted as 560 nanometers. Claim 15 recites the limitation " the appearance " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16, 17, and 18 are dependent on claim 15 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 15. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1- 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Serrano Sanmiguel et al. ( US 20160101029 A1 , published April 14, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Serrano”) . Regarding claims 1 and 2, Serrano teaches a method (“skin rejuvenation systems and methods” in ¶[ 0045 ] ) comprising the steps of: (a) evaluating a skin of a subject for a skin condition (“useful in the treatment of skin disorders” ¶[ 0045 ] therefore, a skin condition needs to be assessed in order to perform these procedures) ; (b) using a light and a laser (“lasers, IPL and LEDs” in conjunction with the “antioxidant peel system” ¶[ 0114 ] ) to treat a portion of the skin (“Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) is a popular cosmetic procedure for rejuvenating skin and removing hair” in ¶[ 0115 ] ) ; (c) using a chemical peel (“FA chemical peel system” in ¶[ 0005 ] ) to treat a portion of the skin (“a system for skin rejuvenation” in ¶[ 0005 ] ) ; and (d) exfoliating the treated areas of the skin (the antioxidant peel system can contain “the exfoliating product” in ¶[ 0032 ] and the benefits of exfoliation in ¶[ 0055 ] ) ; wherein the exfoliating step occurs at least five days after steps (b) and (c) (“an antioxidant peel system of the present disclosure is applied at intervals of 7 to 14 days for optimal results” in ¶[0098]) . Regarding claim 3, Serrano teaches wherein the skin condition is at least one of the following: acne, hyperpigmentation, melisma, rosacea, scars, or wrinkles (“including , but not limited to: photodamaged skin; photoaged skin; hyperpigmentation, including melasma; acne vulgaris, including inflammatory acne, comedonal acne and mild-to-moderate scarring resulting from acne or other atrophic scarring; rosacea; sun spots; freckles; solar lentigenes ; premalignant skin cancer; wrinkles; stretch-marks; or superficial scars and other similar common skin problems ” in ¶[ 0045 ] ) . Regarding claim 4, Serrano teaches wherein the skin condition is due to aging or photoaging (“photoaged skin” in ¶[ 0045 ] ) . Regarding claim 6, Serrano teaches wherein the evaluating of the skin further includes determining the Fitzpatrick type (“ an antioxidant peel system of the present disclosure can be applied to all skin types … Improvement of the surface roughness and texture occurs immediately and are frequently seen in mild to moderate photoaging in Fitzpatrick I-IV patients ” in ¶[ 0097 ] ) . Regarding claim 8, Serrano teaches wherein the light is intense pulse light (“Intense Pulsed Light (IPL)” in ¶[ 0115 ] ) . Regarding claim 10, Serrano teaches wherein the chemical peel is a self-neutralizing peel (“ an antioxidant peel system of the present disclosure comprises a self-neutralizing peel ” in ¶[ 0042 ] ) . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Serrano as evidenced by El- Domyati et al. ( El- Domyati , M. et al. “Intense Pulsed Light Photorejuvenation : A Histological and Immunohistochemical Evaluation”. J Drugs Dermatol. 2011;10(11):1246-1252 .; H ereinafter referred to as “ El- Domyati ” ). Regarding claim 9, Serrano ’s intense pulse light, as set forth above, inherently contains the limitation of wherein the intense pulse light operates in a wavelength range of 400 nanometers to 1200 nanometers. El- Domyati teaches that IPL is a noncoherent polychromatic filtered flashlamp source producing light energy in a broad band wavelength spectrum (400–1200 nm) . Therefore, IPL inherently encompasses the wavelength range from 400-1200 nm. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Trow et al. ( Trow , R. et al. Needs-based Anti-aging Treatment Plans . www.skiinc.com, Nov. 2007; hereinafter referred to as “ Trow ” ) and in even further view of Carruthers et al. ( Carruthers, J . et al. “ Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Facial Fine Lines. ” Dermatologic Surgery 42( ):p S227-S234, October 2016. | DOI: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000847 ; hereinafter referred to as “ Carruthers ”) . Regarding claim 5, Serrano teaches the method of claim 1 and 2. Serrano also teaches wherein the evaluating of the skin further includes grading the skin on the following factor s : ethnicity and tone (“Fitzpatrick I-IV patients” in ¶[ 0097 ] ) . Serrano fails to disclose grading the ski n on age, pigmentation, texture, and lifestyle. Trow t eaches that there is no single perfect skincare treatment and that individuals need an appropriate plan based on their own situation and lifestyle. A questionnaire helps highlight past problems and the client’s willingness to invest in their skin health. Trow says that individuals need an appropriate treatment plan based on their own situations and lifestyles. Trow discloses that one of the most effective systems for choosing services is the Glogau scale which objectively measures the severity of photoaging, particularly wrinkles which grades the skin on factors such as age and discolorations ( pigmentation ) (p. 127-128). Trow does not disclose grading the skin based on texture . Carruthers discloses a tool for measuring facial skin roughness before and after aesthetic treatments. Given the growing popularity of procedures for reducing fine lines , there is a need for a reliable validated photonumeric scale. This scale may be used in clinical trials and for pretreatment and posttreatment use by clinicians treating fine lines of the cheek and midface. The scale may also be useful for teaching and for informing and building trust with patients. Use of validated scales for formalized and reproducible consultation procedures can help establish clear patient expectations regarding likely treatment outcomes, thus empowering patients to make informed treatment decisions . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to grade the skin on age, pigmentation, and lifestyle as taught by Trow and texture as taught by Carruthers in the method step of evaluating skin conditions in Serrano in order to accurately measure these features and use them to choose the proper treatment as well as have a way of monitoring changes in the skin before and after treatment. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Laurent-Applegate et al. ( US 20130251651 A1 , published Sept. 26, 2013 , hereinafter “ Laurent-Applegate ”) . Regarding claim 7, Serrano teaches the method of claim 1 and 2. Serrano fails to disclose wherein the laser is a non-ablative laser. Laurent-Applegate ’s invention relates to methods and compositions designed for treating a subject suffering from skin conditions, disorders or diseases . Laurent-Applegate notes that n on-ablative lasers (laser with cooling, long pulsed laser, Fraxel laser, etc. ) or light treatments (intense pulse light (IPL) treatments, photomodulation , infrared light, etc.) are less invasive since they target the lower layers of skin (dermis) and leave the epidermis mostly unharmed ( ¶[ 0156 ] ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use non-ablative lasers as taught by Laurent-Applegate in the skin treatment method of Serrano in order to minimize damage to the patient’s epidermis. Claim s 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Levy ( US 20160166273 A1 , published June 16, 2016, hereinafter “Levy”) . Regarding claim 11, Serrano teaches the method of claims 1 and 2. Serrano does not disclose wherein the exfoliating step comprises a dermaplane . Levy’s invention relates to a hand - held dermaplaning device for exfoliating facial skin that is safe to use by non-professionals as well as a process for dermaplaning facial skin . Dermaplaning is a relatively popular process that is relatively simple and safe and is used for exfoliating the epidermis, i.e. outer layer of cells in the skin, and removing fine vellus hair, i.e. peach fuzz, from the skin. Dermaplaning is a process normally performed by licensed skin care professionals, such as, estheticians. Using a scalpel and a delicate touch, the scalpel is swept across the skin with light feathering strokes to exfoliate the skin. Exfoliation involves the removal of the oldest dead skin cells on the skin's outermost surface ( ¶[ 0017 ] ). Dermaplaning facial skin has many benefits. For example, removing epidermal skin allows skin care products to penetrate more readily into deeper layers of the skin for better results. As mentioned above, dermaplaning removes vellus hair which tends to cause a build-up of dirt and oils in the follicles. Removal of the hair results in healthier looking skin ( ¶[ 0018 ] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include dermaplaning as taught by Levy for the exfoliating step in the method of Serrano in order to remove the epidermal skin and the built-up hair, dirt, and oils to result in healthier looking skin. Regarding claim 12, Serrano teaches a method (“skin rejuvenation systems and methods” in ¶[ 0045 ] ) comprising the steps of: (a) evaluating a skin of a subject for a skin condition resulting from aging or photoaging ( symptoms associated with photo- aging of the skin include dehydration, wrinkles, loss of firmness, and sun spots in ¶[ 00 88 ] and in ¶[ 0045 ] ) ; (b) determining a Fitzpatrick type of the skin of the subject (“ an antioxidant peel system of the present disclosure can be applied to all skin types … Improvement of the surface roughness and texture occurs immediately and are frequently seen in mild to moderate photoaging in Fitzpatrick I-IV patients ” in ¶[ 0097 ] ) ; (c) using an intense pulse light to treat a portion of the skin with the skin condition (“IPL” in conjunction with the “antioxidant peel system” ¶[ 0114 ] and “Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) is a popular cosmetic procedure for rejuvenating skin and removing hair” in ¶[ 0115 ] ) ; (d) using a self-neutralizing chemical peel to treat the portion of the skin with the skin condition (“ an antioxidant peel system of the present disclosure comprises a self-neutralizing peel ” in ¶[ 0042 ] ) ; and wherein the step (e (exfoliating) ) occurs at least five days after steps (c) and (d) (“an antioxidant peel system [exfoliation] of the present disclosure is applied at intervals of 7 to 14 days for optimal results” in ¶[ 0098 ] ) . Serrano fails to disclose (e) using a dermaplane on the treated portion of the skin . Levy’s invention relates to a hand - held dermaplaning device for exfoliating facial skin that is safe to use by non-professionals as well as a process for dermaplaning facial skin . Dermaplaning is a relatively popular process that is relatively simple and safe and is used for exfoliating the epidermis, i.e. outer layer of cells in the skin, and removing fine vellus hair, i.e. peach fuzz, from the skin. Dermaplaning is a process normally performed by licensed skin care professionals, such as, estheticians. Using a scalpel and a delicate touch, the scalpel is swept across the skin with light feathering strokes to exfoliate the skin. Exfoliation involves the removal of the oldest dead skin cells on the skin's outermost surface ( ¶[ 0017 ] ). Dermaplaning facial skin has many benefits. For example, removing epidermal skin allows skin care products to penetrate more readily into deeper layers of the skin for better results. As mentioned above, dermaplaning removes vellus hair which tends to cause a build-up of dirt and oils in the follicles. Removal of the hair results in healthier looking skin ( ¶[ 0018 ] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include dermaplaning as taught by Levy to exfoliate in the method of Serrano in order to remove the epidermal skin and the built-up hair, dirt, and oils to result in healthier looking skin. Regarding claim 13, Serrano teaches wherein the skin condition is melasma (“melasma” in ¶[ 0045 ] ) . Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Levy (hereinafter “Serrano and Levy ”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. ( Zhang, F. et al. “A novel cosmetic and clinically practicable laser immunotherapy for facial verruca plana: Intense pulsed light combined with BCG-PSN” Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy, Volume 22, 2018, Pages 86-90, ISSN 1572-1000, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.02.003. , hereinafter “ Zhang ”) and in even further view of Marques et al. (Marques, R. et al. “Treatment of rosacea with dual-band wavelength intense pulsed light in a single shot.” Surg Cosmet Dermatol . 2016;8(2):128-132; hereinafter referred to as “Marques”) . Regarding claim 14, Serrano and Levy teaches the method of claim 12. Serrano and Levy fail to disclose wherein intense pulse light wavelength has a mid-range 560 nanometer peak with a pulse duration time of 5-29 milliseconds and a fluence between 14-18 joules per centimeter squared . The instant specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range(s) of “ pulse light wavelength has a mid-range 560 nanometer peak with a pulse duration time of 5-29 milliseconds and a fluence between 14-18 joules per centimeter squared “ is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range(s). Zhang teaches a method for treating a skin condition using an intense pulsed light with a wavelength filter of 560 n ano m eters , a fluence of 15-17 joules per centimeter squared, and a pulse duration of 4 milliseconds. Zhang does not disclose the pulse duration is between 5-29 ms . Marques teaches treating the patient’s skin using a pulse duration of between 12 and 25 ms , in one or two passes, depending on the severity of the clinical picture and the tolerance of each patient (p. 129) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an intense pulse light with a wavelength of 560 nm and fluence of 14-18 joules per centimeter squared as taught by Zhang and a pulse duration between 5-29 ms as taught by Marques for the intense pulsed light parameters of the method of Serrano and Levy in order to treat various skin conditi ons and different patients . Claim s 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanks et al. ( US 20050203593 A1 , published September 15, 2005, hereinafter “Shanks” ) in view of S anthanam et al. ( US 20160256368 A1 , published Sept. 8, 2016, hereinafter “Santhanam”) . Regarding claim 15, Shanks teaches a method for improving the appearance of skin (“ method for treating skin ” in ¶[ 0015 ] ) comprising the steps (“m ultiple types of dermatological treatments can be combined ” in ¶[ 0015 ] ) of : (a) evaluating a skin of a subject for a skin condition (“ depending on the type of skin defect ” therefore evaluating the skin condition in ¶[ 0015 ] ) ; (b) using a treatment that targets below a surface of the skin to treat the portion of the skin (“ intense pulsed light ("IPL") therapy, also known as the photofacial , is applied to the patient. IPL uses high levels of broad spectrum, incoherent light power in millisecond bursts to destroy specific layers deep in the skin, leaving the surface undamaged ” in ¶[ 0016 ] ) ; (c) using a treatment that targets the surface of the skin to treat a portion of the skin (“ Chemabrasion uses chemicals to remove the outer layers of skin ” in ¶[ 0020 ] ) and (d) exfoliating the treated areas of the skin (“ a patient can be treated by microdermabrasion, also known as the crystal or power peel. This dermatological treatment blasts the top layer of skin with an extremely fine mixture of crystals, removing the dead cells. ” in ¶[ 0019 ] ) . Shanks does not disclose wherein the exfoliating step occurs at least five days after steps (b) and (c). Santhanam ’s invention relates to methods for reducing signs of aging and/or improving the health of human skin. The invention alternates treatments with the second period of time typically begin ning on the day following the last day of the first period of time, although it is contemplated that the end of the first period of time and the beginning of the second period of time may be separated by one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven days or more, which may be a predetermined period of time, for the skin to “ rest ” without treatment with the first or second treatment modalities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exfoliating step occur at least five days after treating the surface and under the skin as taught by Santhanam in the method of treating the skin of Shanks in order to allow the skin to rest between treatments. Regarding claim 16, Shanks discloses wherein the skin condition is at least one of the following: acne, actinic keratosis, hyperpigmentation, age spots, rosacea, scars, spider veins, or wrinkles (“ Undesirable conditions of the skin include wrinkles; rosacea; enlarged pores; sun damage; actinic keratoses; actinic chelitis ; acne vulgaris; brown spots such as age-spots and freckles; hyper- and hypo-pigmentation, broken blood vessels; vascular pigmented lesions, including telangiectasias ("spider veins") and hemangiomas; scars, including hypertrophic scars, as a result of acne, trauma, burns and surgery; unwanted hair or tattoos ” in ¶[ 0003 ] ) . Regarding claim 17, Shanks discloses wherein the treatment that targets the surface of the skin includes chemical peels (“ chemabrasion ” in ¶[ 0020 ] ) or microdermabrasion (“microdermabrasion” in ¶[ 0019 ] ) . Regarding claim 18, Shanks discloses wherein the treatment that targets below the surface of the skin includes intense pulse light therapy (“intense pulsed light” in ¶[ 0016 ] ) . Conclusion The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Mann ( US 20020155083 A1 ) – uses lasers and chemical peel together McDaniel ( US 20030004556 A1 ) – light therapy and compositions Bernstein ( US 20080082148 A1 ) – discusses the benefit of 560 nm wavelength range and includes mention of mechanical exfoliation, lasers, and chemical peels Powell et al. ( US 20080103563 A1 ) - microdermabrasion (exfoliation) along with light therapy - talks about different things it treats Kauvar ( US 20080234669 A1 ) – improving skin with an energy source with minimal ablation Castro ( US 8597284 B2 ) – mechanical and chemical peels for skin conditions Baumann, L. “Understanding and Treating Various Skin Types: The Baumann Skin Type Indicator”. Dermatologic Clinics. Volume 26, Issue 3. July 2008. Snippets of pages 359-373 --- discuses hyperpigmentation, wrinkles, and other classifications. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9734 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8-5 and every other F 8-4 ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Unsu Jung can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8506 . 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. /E.N.C./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /UNSU JUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792