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 Amendment
Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 all contain minor amendments (e.g., the irradiation is laser irradiation, and the optical sensor sends infrared signal information). Claim 8 has been amended into independent form and incorporates the claimed subject matter of claims 1, and 6-7, making claim 8 allowable as indicated in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2, the first two full paragraphs Applicant summarizes, compares, and contrasts the prior art of Cense et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0173782) and the present invention.
On page 2, the 3rd full paragraph Applicant asserts “There is no showing, teaching or disclosure of directing a laser signal at the irradiated tissue for receiving an infrared signal by the thermal laser-tissue interaction model, as disclosed at page 8, lines 7-17 of the specification as filed.” First, both the laser signal and infrared signal are anticipated by the prior as noted in the rejection below. Second, the language in the argument reciting “by the thermal laser-tissue interaction model, as disclosed at page 8, lines 7-17 of the specification as filed” is not commensurate with the claim language. There is nothing in the specification or the claim language requiring the model to be the exact model disclosed on page 8, lines 7-17 of Applicant’s specification. Fourth, to interpret the claim to require that specific model would be improper. Although operational characteristics of an apparatus may be apparent from the specification, we will not read such characteristics into the claims when they cannot be fairly connected to the structure recited in the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant is invited to request an interview to discuss suggestions to find an acceptable conclusion of the prosecution for all parties.
Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 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 laser irradiation signal at tissue for a therapeutic effect (see abstract, [0005]-
[0006], and [0026], also [0026]-[0030] disclose the laser);
receiving, from an optical sensor ("infrared sensor 49," see [0012], [0029], claim 8 and figures 1-2 for example, and alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments for example sensor/detector 55), infrared signals defining 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]-[003 l] 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 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]).
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, Cense et al. 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 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 10-11, and 13-16 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("detector43" and "infrared sensor49," 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 l); and
a laser control ("control unit 3 7," 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 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 13-14, 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 allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: firstly, regarding the amendments made to claim 8, Applicant’s remarks are persuasive and claim 8 was previously objected to but otherwise allowable if rewritten in independent form with the subject matter of its independent claim and all other intervening claim(s) subject matter. Applicant rewrote claim 8 in independent form with the subject matter of its independent claim and all other intervening claim(s) subject matter. Secondly, the prior art does not anticipate or provide a properly motivated combination making obvious the presently claimed invention as defined by claim 8 in its entirety.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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
Prosecution Insights