DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/27/25 has been received and considered. By this amendment no claims have been added, cancelled, or amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Moeskops was previously said not to disclose that the power density is averaged over the entire cross section of the core and now is being used to teach the power density is an average power density averaged over the entire cross section of the core.
For clarity, the history is summarized here:Non-final 9/18/24: Moeskops used to teach optical waveguide and 50kW/cm2
Claims amended 11/21/24: adding core, cladding, and average power density over cross section
Final 2/12/25: Moeskops in view of Goell. Goell teaching the additions made above. Examiner agrees Moeskops does not teach that the power density is averaged over the entire cross section of the core because Moeskops does not teach a core. Moeskops does teach the power density, however.
Claims amended 5/12/25: adding the upper limit of 300kW/cm2
Non-final 7/1/25: Gustavsson in view of Moeskops. Moeskops is used to teach only the power density range. The “averaged over the entire cross section” is taught by Gustavsson because Gustavsson teaches the core through which the light (rays 118) travels evenly through the cross-section (see Fig. 4 and par. 31) before exiting surface 106. Again, Moeskops is only being used to teach the power density range that is most efficient for cutting/evaporating hair. Therefore, Moeskops is not relied on for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the previous arguments (the core and even distribution of power across the cross section). Moeskops is relied on for the power density range.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsson et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0276685) in view of Moeskops et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0359592).
Regarding Claim 1, Gustavsson discloses a hair cutting device (see par. 6), comprising:
an optical waveguide (see par. 29) comprising a core (see core 114) and a cladding (see cladding 116) which covers at least a part of the core (see par. 31 and Fig. 4),
wherein the optical waveguide comprises a light irradiator for irradiating hair protruding from a skin with light to cut the hair (see exposed portion; par. 32).
Gustavsson discloses an adjustable power or energy level, but does not elaborate on the power density (see par. 41).
Moeskops discloses a similar hair cutting device wherein at least at a time of cutting the hair, a power density of light passing through the optical waveguide is more than or equal to 70 kW/cm and less than and equal to 300 kW/cm (see par. 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the average power density over the entire cross section of Gustavsson’s core within this range because Moeskops teaches it helps to cut or evaporate the hair which is preferable and more efficient than melting it (see par. 15).
Regarding Claim 2, Gustavsson discloses wherein the power density of the light passing through the optical waveguide is variable (see par. 11 and 38). The examiner considers a changing diameter of the waveguide will necessarily alter the power density of the light passing through.
Regarding Claim 3, Gustavsson discloses the hair cutting device according to Claim 1; and
a light source (see light source 110) for generating light to be input to the optical waveguide (see par. 29).
Regarding Claim 4, Gustavsson discloses wherein the power density of the light passing through the optical waveguide is adjusted by an output from the light source (see par. 29). The examiner considers controlling the wavelength emitted will necessarily affect the power density because the power density of a light source can be calculated by integrating the spectral irradiance (power per unit area per wavelength) over all relevant wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 5, Gustavsson does not disclose intermittent light generation. Moeskops discloses wherein the light source intermittently generates the light by repeating a light emission period and a light-off period (see pulsed; par. 16-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pulse light emission because Moeskops teaches it maximizes the operating efficiency of the cutting head (see par. 74).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Gustavsson does not elaborate on the time lengths of the emission periods. Moeskops discloses a time length of the light emission period is less than or equal to 1/10000 seconds (see par. 74) and a time length of the light emission period is more than or equal to 1/100 seconds (see par. 75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to emit at these pulse durations because Moeskops teaches it allows hair to be cut by optical absorption, whilst minimizing parasitic plasma formation (see par. 74).
Regarding Claim 9, Gustavsson discloses wherein a wavelength of light generated by the light source is more than or equal to 400 nm (see par. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Gustavsson discloses wherein the light source is a laser light source (see par. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Gustavsson discloses wherein:
the optical waveguide has a first end (see proximal end 104a; par. 30) to which the light to cut the hair enters, a second end (see distal end 104b; par. 31) opposite to the first end and a side wall connecting the first end and the second end (see Fig. 4), and the light to cut the hair is output from a part of the side wall (see cutting surface 106; par. 31).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsson et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0276685) in view of Moeskops et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0359592), and further in view of Gustavsson (PG Pub. 2008/0244912), hereinafter Gustavsson ‘912.
Regarding Claim 8, Gustavsson and Moeskops do not disclose switching between modes. Gustavsson ‘912 discloses a similar hair cutting device wherein an operation mode of the light source is switchable between a first mode in which a time length of the light emission period is equal to or less than 1/10000 seconds, and a second mode in which a time length of the light emission period is more than or equal to 1/100 seconds (see par. 55, 58-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a switchable mode because Gustavsson teaches different types of hair may need different lengths of time (see par. 58).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATASHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5818. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F Eastern.
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, James Kish can be reached at (571) 272-5554. 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.
/N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/JAMES M KISH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights