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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 82-95 are pending.
Claims 2-81 are canceled.
Claims 87-95 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 03JUN2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are moot in view of new grounds of rejection prompted by Applicant’s amendment to claims. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20190133642 A1 (Ignon et al.) in view of US 20010011162 A1 (Epstein).
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 03JUN2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted Claims 87-95 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1 and 82-86, drawn to a skin treatment system comprising a tower assembly.
Group II, claim(s) 87-95, drawn to a skin treatment system comprising a console.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a handpiece assembly, a (fluid) source coupled to the handpiece assembly, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 20190133642 A1 (Ignon et al.).
Ignon teaches a skin treatment system comprising a handpiece (100) (Fig. 1) assembly; and a fluid source (air source [0201, 0206], or vacuum).
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 87-95 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 82, and 84-86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190133642 A1 (Ignon et al.) in view of US 20010011162 A1 (Epstein).
Regarding Claims 1 and 82, Ignon teaches a skin treatment system comprising:
a tower assembly [0109] (Figs. 9-11) including a manifold assembly (1000), the manifold assembly comprising at least one fluid connector to secure at least one treatment fluid container [0153] (seen in Fig. 9);
a handpiece (100) (Fig. 1) assembly; and
a separate fluid source (air source [0201, 0206]) configured to deliver a separate fluid to the handpiece assembly (air being a separate fluid), wherein the separate fluid is distinct from a fluid contained in the at least one treatment fluid container (potential fluids to be contained being listed in [0111]);
wherein the handpiece assembly is configured to be hydraulically coupled to a vacuum source [0105] to remove waste away from the distal end of the handpiece assembly during use (waste being suctioned from the handpiece tip [0195]).
Ignon fails to teach a multi-lumen conduit connecting the tower assembly and the handpiece assembly.
Epstein teaches system for delivering fluids (Fig. 9) via a handpiece (10) wherein a multi-lumen conduit (48) connecting the fluid sources (corresponding to the tower assembly) and the handpiece assembly;
wherein the multi-lumen conduit comprises a first lumen (20) configured to fluidly couple the at least one treatment fluid container to the handpiece assembly, and a second lumen (21) configured to fluidly couple the separate fluid source to the handpiece assembly;
wherein the handpiece assembly is configured to combine a first treatment material from the at least one treatment fluid container and the separate fluid at or near a distal end of the handpiece assembly (the distal-most portions of (16) and (18) Fig. 9).
wherein the multi-lumen conduit is configured to removably secure to a coupler of the handpiece assembly (teaching quick release mechanisms [0090]);
wherein the multi-lumen conduit further comprises a third fluid conduit (22) configured to hydraulically couple the handpiece assembly to the vacuum source [0047, 0051].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ignon to incorporate the multi-lumen system of Epstein to all a user to perform a plurality of steps with a single instrument [Epstein 0080].
Regarding Claim 84, Ignon further teaches the coupler (160) is positioned on a proximal end of the handpiece assembly (100) (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 85, Ignon further teaches the handpiece (100) assembly further comprises a tip (130) secured along the distal end of the handpiece assembly (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 86, Ignon further teaches the first treatment material and the separate fluid are combined at the tip (teaching a plurality of possible means for combining, as detailed in [0038, 0043].
Claim(s) 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignon in view of Epstein and further in view of US 6733472 B1 (Epstein), hereinafter Epstein ‘472.
Regarding Claim 83, Ignon in view of Epstein fails to teach that during use, the vacuum source draws at least one of the first treatment material and the separate fluid from the tower assembly to at or near the distal end of the handpiece assembly.
Epstein ‘472 teaches an applicator tip (10) for use with multiple fluids [Abstract], wherein during use, the vacuum source draws at least one of the first treatment material (18) and the separate fluid (20) from the source corresponding to the tower assembly to at or near the distal end of the handpiece assembly (forward of (30), as seen in Fig. 1), as described in Col. 5: ll. 1-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170172796 A1 teaches a system for combining fluids in a handpiece.
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 HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
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 (571) 272-7159. 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.
/HANS KALIHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights