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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/02/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 11/18/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decaux in view of Yildirim, of claims 8-10 and 17-18 in further view of Wandke, and of claim 15 in further view of Streeter have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decaux et al. (US 2015/0327653 A1) in view of Yildirim et al. (US 2020/0038673 A1), and in further view of Shor et al. (US 2019/0009019 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Decaux discloses a skin care system (Figs. 1-7; ¶0007, 0101-0114, and 0159) comprising: a dispensing device (1; ¶0101 and 0159) configured to administer a light therapy (Figs. 6-7, feats. 9 and 90; ¶0110-0114 and 0122-0124); and an applicator (7; ¶0107-0113) configured to apply a formula (3), comprising: a reservoir configured to hold the formula (Figs. 3 and 7, feat. 11; ¶0119-0121), a roller ball configured to apply the formula (7; ¶0107-0113), an attachment configured to attach a cartridge (17; ¶0159) to the dispensing device (Fig. 7, feats. 51a and 51b; ¶0159) and a microcontroller (146; ¶0221), one or more light sources configured to administer the light therapy (Figs. 1, 7, and 12-12A, feat. 9; ¶0106-0110 and 0200), wherein the one or more light sources are a ring of LEDs around a top of the dispensing device (Figs. 1, 7, and 12-12A, feat. 9, 9A; ¶0106-0110 and 0200: LEDs 9 are positioned where the cartridge 17 is inserted into the device and are therefore positioned near, or around, a top of the device and the plurality of LEDs 9 are a sectioned ring in Fig. 2).
Decaux does not disclose that the dispensing device is configured to administer a plasma treatment or that the microcontroller is configured to identify the lifetime of the applicator, the amount of the formula inside the applicator, the type of the formula applied by the applicator, and the type of plasma treatment that should be administered with the identified type of the formula, and to direct the dispensing device to apply the identified type of plasma treatment.
Yildirim teaches systems for applying plasma (Figs. 6 and 9, feat. 118; ¶0127-0128 and 0139-0141) to a biological surface such as the skin (210) alongside an auxiliary treatment such as a light treatment (Fig. 6, feat. 152; ¶0127) or a formulation (Fig. 9, 410; ¶0139-0141). Yildirim teaches that the plasma treatment may generate reactive chemical species in the atmosphere and formulation, while also exposing the biological surface to electric fields which open pores in and improve molecular transport across the cell membrane, thereby amplifying the treatment impact (¶0020-0025 and 0139-0141). Yildirim further teaches that combining light treatments and plasma treatments may provide cosmetic treatment of blemishes and enhance the effect of the plasma treatment due to radiative heating of the skin (¶0127-0128). Yildirim further teaches that the system should include a controller for determining and controlling the dose of plasma delivered to the skin (¶0080-0086). The controller may further include a formulation engine which determines the type of formulation being applied (Fig. 14, feat. 625; ¶0086-0095 and 0176-0178). The controller further determines new parameters of the plasma treatment, or in other words the type of plasma treatment, based on the surface conditions of the skin, as determined by a sensor (¶0160-0161, 0165, and 0177-0180). The surface conditions of the skin are modified by the application of the formulation (¶0139 and 0178-0179). Therefore, the controller is configured to identify the type of plasma treatment that should be administered with the type of formulation applied by the applicator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system suggested by Decaux so that the dispensing device is configured to administer a plasma treatment in order to amplify the treatment impact of the formulation and so that the microcontroller is configured to identify the type of formula applied by the applicator and the type of plasma treatment that should be administered with the identified with the identified type of the formula and to direct the dispensing device to apply the identified type of plasma treatment in order to determine and control the dose of plasma delivered to the skin as taught by Yildirim.
Decaux in view of Yildirim does not suggest that the microcontroller is configured to identify the lifetime of the applicator or the amount of the formula inside the applicator.
Shor teaches a medication delivery device (Figs. 1-3, feat. 100; ¶0125) comprising a reservoir (106) containing a medicament or formula and a control unit (116) with a computing unit (117). The control unit is in communication with a medicament level sensor to monitor the amount of medicament or formula remaining in the reservoir (¶0207 and 0214). This allows the control unit to determine how close the reservoir is to being empty and how soon it needs to be replaced (¶0214), or the remaining lifetime of the reservoir in other words. Shor teaches that this allows the device to signal to the user when the reservoir needs to be replaced (¶0214). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system suggested by Decaux in view of Shor so that the microcontroller is configured to identify the lifetime of the applicator and the amount of the formula inside the applicator so that the system can provide a signal to the user when the reservoir needs to be replaced as taught by Shor.
Regarding claim 2, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the skin care system of claim 1. As discussed above, Yildirim teaches that plasma treatment amplifies the treatment impact of formulations (¶0020-0025 and 0139-0141). Yildirim further teaches that the plasma (Fig. 9, feat. 118) is discharged into the skin (210) through the formulation (410) to generate beneficial reactive species within the formulation (¶0139-0141), and therefore the generated beneficial reactive species and plasma are applied to the skin simultaneously. As discussed above, Yildirim that combining light treatments and plasma treatments may provide cosmetic treatment of blemishes and enhance the effect of the plasma treatment due to radiative heating of the skin (¶0127-0128), and Yildirim further teaches that the plasma (Fig. 6, feat. 118) and light (152) are applied to the skin (210) simultaneously. Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor further suggests that the light therapy and the plasma treatment are administered simultaneously with the application of the formula.
Regarding claim 3, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the skin care system of claim 1, and Decaux further discloses that the dispensing device is configured to apply two or more wavelengths of light therapy, simultaneously (¶0110: light source 9 emits light according to different wavelengths). Regarding claim 6, Decaux further discloses that the applicator further comprises a clear attachment so that the light from the one or more lights sources on the dispensing device can pass through the attachment to administer the light therapy (Figs. 3 and 5, feat. 7; ¶0107-0113).
Regarding claim 7, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the skin care system of claim 1. Yildirim further teaches an electrode (Figs. 6 and 9, feat. 114; ¶0121 and 0139-0141) which generates plasma (118) when in contact with the surface of a dielectric barrier (116) interposed between the electrode and the skin, which acts as a floating ground electrode (¶0013-0017). Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim further discloses that the applicator further comprises an electrode configured to create plasma on contact with a surface.
Regarding claim 11, Decaux further discloses a method of administering multiple skin treatments (¶0014: product/formula and light are applied to the skin), using a device (Figs. 1 and 7, feat. 1), the method comprising: selecting an applicator (Figs. 1 and 7, feat. 7; ¶0107-0113) filled with formula (3, 11; ¶0119-0121); placing the applicator into the dispensing device (¶0014: a capsule/applicator comprising a reservoir containing product is releasably coupled to a housing – by coupling the capsule/applicator to the housing, the capsule/applicator is also being selected); applying the formula (¶0014: product is dispensed onto the skin surface by the ball); administering light therapy (¶0014: light is transmitted from the light source through the capsule prior to, during, and/or after dispensing the product).
Decaux does not disclose using the device of claim 1, identifying a plasma treatment to apply based on the applicator, or administering the plasma treatment.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Yildirim renders it obvious to modify the device disclosed by Decaux to administer a plasma treatment controlled by a microcontroller in order to amplify the treatment impact of the formulation and to determine and control the dose of plasma delivered to the skin, thereby rendering obvious the device of claim 1. Yildirim further teaches that the chemical environment of the skin may lead to undesirable non-uniformities in the application of plasma to the skin (¶0160-0162) and that the controller should control the dose of applied plasma in response to the chemical environment of the skin to ensure that plasma application is uniform, safe, and effective (¶0165-0172). Yildirim further teaches that a given formulation may change the chemical environment of the skin (¶0139-0141 and 0178). Therefore, Yildirim suggests that the plasma dose should be controlled based on the formulation applied to the skin in order to ensure that plasma application is uniform, safe, and effective. Because the formulation of the system, device, and method of Decaux in view of Yildirim is stored within the reservoir (Decaux: Figs. 3 and 7, feat. 11) of the applicator (Decaux: Figs. 3 and 7, feat. 7), the formulation applied to the skin is based on the applicator, and controlling the plasma dose based on the formulation is also controlling the plasma dose based on the applicator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Decaux to use the device of claim 1, identify a plasma treatment to apply based on the applicator, and administer plasma treatment in order to amplify the treatment impact of the formulation and to determine and control the dose of plasma delivered to the skin to ensure uniform, safe, and effective plasma application as taught by Yildirim.
Regarding claim 12, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the method of claim 11. As discussed above, Yildirim teaches that plasma treatment amplifies the treatment impact of formulations (¶0020-0025 and 0139-0141). Yildirim further teaches that the plasma (Fig. 9, feat. 118) is discharged into the skin (210) through the formulation (410) to generate beneficial reactive species within the formulation (¶0139-0141), and therefore the generated beneficial reactive species and plasma are applied to the skin simultaneously. As discussed above, Yildirim that combining light treatments and plasma treatments may provide cosmetic treatment of blemishes and enhance the effect of the plasma treatment due to radiative heating of the skin (¶0127-0128), and Yildirim further teaches that the plasma (Fig. 6, feat. 118) and light (152) are applied to the skin (210) simultaneously. Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor further suggests that applying of the formula, the administering the light therapy, and administering the plasma treatment is done simultaneously.
Regarding claim 13, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the method of claim 11, and Decaux further discloses that the dispensing device administers light therapy through one or more lights sources (Figs. 1 and 7, feat. 9; ¶0106-0110). Regarding claim 14, Decaux further discloses that the one or more light sources are a ring of LEDs around a top of the dispensing device (Figs. 12-12A, feat. 9; ¶0200).
Regarding claim 16, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the method of claim 11. Decaux further discloses that the applicator may be removed from the device, and replaced by another applicator in order to perform different treatments (¶0014 and 0129-0130). Because the device and method of Decaux in view of Yildirim involves simultaneously administering light, formula, and plasma treatments, replacing the applicator to perform a second formula treatment would also involve performing a second plasma treatment. Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor further suggests that the method further comprises removing the applicator and placing a second applicator into the dispensing device to administer a second plasma treatment and/or a second formula.
Regarding claim 19, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the method of claim 11. Yildirim further teaches that the dose of plasma may be the amount of time that plasma is applied to the skin (¶0024) and that the controller may determine the plasma dose from a variety of treatment parameters (¶0176). Furthermore, the controller switches off the application of plasma when the treatment dose has been met (¶0176 and 0180). Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor further suggests that the method further comprises applying the plasma treatment for a specific time amount based on the microcontroller of the applicator.
Regarding claim 20, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the method of claim 11. As discussed above, Yildirim further teaches that the dose of plasma may be the amount of time that plasma is applied to the skin (¶0024) and that the controller may determine the plasma dose from a variety of treatment parameters (¶0176). Furthermore, the controller switches off the application of plasma when the treatment dose, that is the amount of time that plasma has been applied, has been met (¶0176 and 0180). Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor further suggests that the method further comprises stopping the plasma treatment when the specific time amount has elapsed.
Claims 8-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decaux in view of Yildirim, in further view of Shor, and in further view of Wandke et al. (US 2022/0117073 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the skin care system of claim 7, but does not disclose that the attachment is the electrode.
Wandke teaches a plasma treatment device (Figs. 3a-4c, feat. 1; ¶0154-0163) comprising a handle housing (9; ¶0138) with high-voltage supply and control electronics (61, 63, 64, 65; ¶0144-0146) and a removable brush head (Figs. 3b and 4b, feat. 15) with an electrode arrangement (5) comprising a distributor plate (41) and a plurality of electrodes for generating plasma (3; ¶0155-0158). The electrode arrangement (Fig. 4b, feat. 5) further comprises a connector (73), or attachment, which mates with a matching connector (71) on the handle for supplying high-voltage via a high-voltage wire (10; ¶0162). Wandke teaches that making the brush head with the electrodes removable allows the brush head and electrodes to be easily replaced after use, which ensures hygienic operation (¶0090-0092). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin care system suggested by Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor so that the attachment is the electrode to allow it to be easily replaced, which ensures hygienic operation as taught by Wandke.
Regarding claim 9, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the skin care system of claim 7, but does not disclose that the applicator further comprises a wire connecting the electrode to the dispensing device.
As discussed above, Wandke teaches a plasma treatment device (Figs. 3a-4c, feat. 1; ¶0154-0163) comprising a handle housing (9; ¶0138) with high-voltage supply and control electronics (61, 63, 64, 65; ¶0144-0146) and a removable brush head (Figs. 3b and 4b, feat. 15) with an electrode arrangement (5) comprising a distributor plate (41) and a plurality of electrodes for generating plasma (3; ¶0155-0158). The electrode arrangement is connected to the high-voltage supply and control electronics via a high-voltage wire (10) in order to supply the high voltage required for generating plasma (¶0144-0146). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system suggested by Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor so that the applicator further comprises a wire connecting the electrode to the dispensing device in order to supply the high voltage required for generating plasma as taught by Wandke.
Regarding claim 10, Decaux in view of Yildirim, in further view of Shor, and in further view of Wandke discloses the skin care system of claim 9. Wandke further teaches that high voltage is passed through the wire and the electrode to generate plasma (¶0145-0146). Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim, in further view of Shor, and in further view of Wandke further discloses that the dispensing device is further configured to pass high voltage through the wire and to the electrode.
Regarding claim 17, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the method of claim 11, but does not disclose applying high voltage to an electrode in the applicator to administer plasma treatment. Decaux and Yildirim are silent with respect to the voltage required to apply a plasma treatment.
As discussed above, Wandke teaches a plasma treatment device (Figs. 3a-4c, feat. 1; ¶0154-0163) comprising a handle housing (9; ¶0138) with high-voltage supply and control electronics (61, 63, 64, 65; ¶0144-0146) and a removable brush head (Figs. 3b and 4b, feat. 15) with an electrode arrangement (5) comprising a distributor plate (41) and a plurality of electrodes for generating plasma (3; ¶0155-0158). Wandke further teaches that high voltage passed through a high-voltage wire (10) and electrode arrangement is required to generate the plasma (¶0145-0146). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor so that it further comprises applying high voltage to an electrode in the applicator to administer plasma treatment in order to successfully generate the plasma as taught by Wandke.
Regarding claim 18, Decaux in view of Yildirim, in further view of Shor, and in further view of Wandke suggests the method of claim 17. As discussed above, Wandke teaches that high voltage is applied to the electrode arrangement through a wire (10; ¶0144-0146). Therefore, Decaux in view of Yildirim, in further view of Shor, and in further view of Wandke further suggests that the high voltage is applied to the electrode with a dispensing device through a wire in the applicator.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decaux in view of Yildirim, in further view of Shor, and in further view of Streeter et al. (US 2018/0168318 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor suggests the method of claim 11, but does not disclose that the method further comprises identifying the formula in the applicator with the dispensing device.
Streeter teaches an applicator (Fig. 10, feat. 20; ¶0077-0078) for applying both a formulation (48) from a cartridge (22) and a light treatment from a light source (36). The cartridge may have an RFID tag (116), and the applicator may have an RFID reader (118) so that the formulation may be identified based on its treatment parameters and the applicator may adjust the treatment parameters of the light treatment (¶0083). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Decaux in view of Yildirim and in further view of Shor so that the method further comprises identifying the formula in the applicator with the dispensing device in order to adjust the treatment parameters based on the formula as taught by Streeter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights