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 .
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 11-16 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.
Claims 11-16 are directed to method claims and each of claims 11-16 depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 1 and claim 1 is directed to a device NOT a method.
Accordingly, claims 11-16 will simply be rejected as intended use.
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, 6-7, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cense et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0173782).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Cense et al. disclose a method comprising:
directing an irradiation signal at tissue for a therapeutic effect (see abstract, [0005]-[0006], and [0026] for example);
receiving, from an optical sensor (“infrared sensor 49,” see [0029] and figures 1-2 for example, and alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments for example sensor /detector 55), thermal images indicative of a temperature response of the irradiated tissue based on optical properties of the irradiated tissue (see [0029]-[0030]);
applying the temperature response to a thermal laser-tissue interaction model for computing irradiation response coefficients indicative of an ablative effect on the irradiated tissue from the irradiation (see [0031]. Paragraphs [0029]-[0031] detail some of the steps or procedures for the model/process that is carried out by the system/processor); and
controlling the irradiation signal based on the irradiation response coefficients (“the permissible pulse dose is determined by measuring a scattering coefficient and/or absorption coefficient of the skin for light of a predetermined wavelength,” see [0031]).
With respect to the step of “identifying a thermal response of an irradiated tissue,” Cense et al. disclose that limitations, see 1) temperature measurement/sensing (abstract, [0008]-[0009]), and/or 2) scattering and/or absorption coefficients ([0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Cense et al. disclose the claimed invention, see [0031].
Regarding claim 3, Cense et al. disclose the claimed invention, see abstract, [0017]-[0018] for example where hair is a type of tissue.
Regarding claim 4, Cense et al. disclose the claimed invention, see [0006], and [0026] for example.
Regarding claim 6, Cense et al. disclose the claimed invention, since Cense et al. disclose the sensing/assessing of target skin/tissue temperature, absorption coefficient, and the scattering coefficient.
Regarding claim 7, Cense et al. disclose the claimed invention, “the detector 43 measures a variation of the temperature of the skin as a function of time,” see [0029] implying there are at least two temperature measurements – or two iterations. Also see the iterative measurement/determination of absorption/scattering coefficients of two different wavelengths (see [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Cense et al. in view of Schwarz et al. disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention, see [0009] and [0029] “function of time” of Cense et al. for example.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cense et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0173782) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0236836)..
Regarding claim 5, show the invention above
but fail to explicitly recite the infrared sensor for transmitting thermal information indicative of a temperature response of the irradiated tissue based on optical properties of the irradiated tissue is an infrared camera for transmitting thermal images indicative of a temperature response of the irradiated tissue based on optical properties of the irradiated tissue.
Like Cense et al., Schwarz et al. disclose a dermatological laser treatment device, system, and method (including hair removal) and teach that an infrared camera can be used instead of an infrared sensor in order to provide temperature information as a known and workable alternate/equivalent manner, see [0728].
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cense et al., as taught by Schwarz et al., that an infrared camera can be used instead of an infrared sensor in order to provide temperature information as a known and workable alternate/equivalent manner.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cense et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0173782) in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. Patent 10,471,269).
Regarding claims 10-11, Cense et al. disclose a device comprising:
a laser (“laser source 9,” see [0026] and figures 1) operative for directing an irradiation signal at tissue for a therapeutic effect;
an infrared sensor (“detector 43” and “infrared sensor 49,” see [0029] and figures 1-2) for transmitting thermal information (temperature, see [0008]-[0009]) indicative of a temperature response of the irradiated tissue based on optical properties of the irradiated tissue;
a computation circuit (The circuitry responsible for transmitting and processing “UT” of figure 1) for applying the temperature response to a thermal laser tissue interaction model for computing irradiation response coefficients indicative (see the “absorption coefficient” and “scatter coefficient” in [0031]) of an ablative effect on the irradiated tissue from the irradiation;
a memory for storing the thermal laser-tissue interaction model (“memory of the control unit 37,” see [0029] and figure 1); and
a laser control (“control unit 37,” see [0029] and figure 1) responsive to the computation circuit for controlling the irradiation signal based on the irradiation response coefficients.
Cense et al. fail to explicitly recite the infrared sensor for transmitting thermal information indicative of a temperature response of the irradiated tissue based on optical properties of the irradiated tissue is an infrared camera for transmitting thermal images indicative of a temperature response of the irradiated tissue based on optical properties of the irradiated tissue.
Like Cense et al., Schwarz et al. disclose a dermatological laser treatment device, system, and method (including hair removal) and teach that an infrared camera can be used instead of an infrared sensor in order to provide temperature information as a known and workable alternate/equivalent manner, see col. 95:28-44.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cense et al., as taught by Schwarz et al., that an infrared camera can be used instead of an infrared sensor in order to provide temperature information as a known and workable alternate/equivalent manner.
Regarding claims 12-14, Cense et al. in view of Schwarz et al. disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention since the tissue removal is in the form of hair removal (see Cense et al. [0002], [0007], and [0026] for example), and the laser beam/irradiation is directed to or aimed (see Cense et al. [0026] and figure 1) and moved across or traversed (see Cense et al. [0026] and figure 1) the tissue, and the Schwarz et al. disclose the thermal image contains temperature information (see col. 95:28-44).
Regarding claim 15, Cense et al. disclose the claimed invention, since Cense et al. disclose the sensing/assessing of target skin/tissue temperature ([0008], [0012], and [0031]), absorption coefficient ([0013], and [0031]), and the scattering coefficient ([0013], and [0031]).
Regarding claim 16, Cense et al. in view of Schwarz et al. disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention, see [0009] and [0029] “function of time” of Cense et al. for example.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON F ROANE whose telephone number is (571)272-4771. The examiner can normally be reached generally Mon-Fri 8am-9pm.
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.
/AARON F ROANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792