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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument regarding the output voltage and frequency of the electric current, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2007-125300 A to Ueno Hiroshi (Ueno).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno teaches a beauty device (title “Cosmetic Appliance”) comprising at least three electrodes including at least one pair of electrodes comprising positive and negative poles (See solution which states “The cosmetic appliance has one pair of or more electrodes where at least three positive and negative poles are provided and the positive and negative pole are paired.”) configured to interfere electric currents of different frequencies flowing through a human body among the at least three electrodes ([0008] which states “when the frequency of the current from the electrode is at an intermediate frequency for example 4000 Hz and 4500 Hz, the frequency of the interference becomes a low frequency of 500 Hz.”), wherein a frequency difference of the electric currents among the at least three electrodes causes an interference wave having a frequency between 100 Hz and 1000 Hz formed among the at least three electrodes ([0008] which states “when the frequency of the current from the electrode is at an intermediate frequency for example 4000 Hz and 4500 Hz, the frequency of the interference becomes a low frequency of 500 Hz.”), thereby generating heat such that a temperature reaches between 40oC and 42oC within fat and muscle layers of the human body (Ueno teaches an interference frequency of 500 Hz which is within the disclosed range that results in the claimed heating and therefore Ueno teaches the claimed heating).
It is noted that each of Ueno’s electrodes are capable of without further modification outputting an electric current at a voltage of 30V and a frequency between 60 kHz to 65 kHz. The electric current specifics or an electric source that outputs the claimed voltage and frequency as claimed are not required by the claim and there is nothing to suggest that the electrodes of Ueno would not be capable of without further modification outputting 30V and 60 kHz to 65 kHz.
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.
/KAITLYN E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights