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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the IDS, applicant’s filing of complete and legible copies of all cited references complies with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2). Therefore, the IDS filed on 5/25/23 (and the references cited thereon) have been considered; see annotated and attached IDS.
Regarding the drawing objection, 112a written description rejection, 112b indefiniteness rejections, applicant’s amendments have overcome these objections and rejections, and they are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments with respect to Pan and Li have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the examiner has found a new prior art reference (Tankovich) to teach the newly claimed fan arrangement; see new 103 rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
In terms of the claimed “optical waveguide” recited in claim 1. It is emphasized that applicant’s optical waveguide is a block of sapphire (2) that acts as a window to transmit light out of the device. Therefore, any similar sapphire block/window will inherently/necessarily read on the claimed optical waveguide.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/003950 to Pan (or in the alternative to US 2022/0192745 to Pan)* in view of US 2017/0340386 to Li et al. and further in view of US 2021/0052915 to Tankovich.
*For clarity, the WO 2021/003950 reference qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(1) as it was published before the effective filing date of the current application. On the other hand, US 2022/0192745 (which is a CON of the WO reference) qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2), as it was filed before the effective filing date of the current application. Both are being used in the current rejection, however for citation purposes, only the US reference will be used, as it’s published in English.
[Claims 1 and 12] Pan discloses a handheld home laser hair removal device (portable depilation instrument 100; Figs. 1-2), comprising: a light source (emitter 222; Fig. 7), an optical waveguide (cold compress portion 221; Fig. 7), a heat dissipation unit (heat dissipation mechanism 21, including fan 211 and heat conductive component 212; Figs. 4-6), a cooling unit (refrigeration element 223; Figs. 7 and 11), and a controller (circuit apparatus 3; Fig. 2),
wherein the optical waveguide (cold compress portion 221) is disposed in an optical path of the laser beam, and a treatment window (distal-most end of cold compress portion 221; seen in Fig. 1) is formed on an end surface of the optical waveguide (Pars 0037, 0039 and Par 0056-59 which discloses that the cold compress portion is made of sapphire, i.e. the same material applicant’s optical waveguide is made of, and is used to transmit light from the light source 222 to the skin of the user.),
wherein the heat dissipation unit (21) comprises a radiator (heat dissipation fin 2114; Fig. 5) and a cooling fan (fan 211) for cooling the radiator (Pars 0050-51; Fig. 15),
wherein the cooling unit cools the optical waveguide (Pars 0056 and 0058),
wherein the controller (circuit apparatus 3) is electrically connected to the light source (222), the heat dissipation unit (21), and the cooling unit (223), respectively (“The depilation apparatus 2, the circuit apparatus 3, and the power supply apparatus 4 are all sequentially electrically connected” Par 0041 and “Both the emitter 222 and the refrigeration element 223 are electrically connected to the circuit apparatus 3” Par 0056. Regarding the heat dissipation unit 21 being connected to the controller, i.e. circuit board 3, the examiner contends that because the heat dissipation unit 21 is part of the depilation apparatus 2, and the depilation apparatus is electrically connected to the 6
controller/circuit, then so is the heat dissipation unit; see Par 0047 and Fig. 4 which make it clear that the heat dissipation unit 21 is part of the depilation apparatus 2. Furthermore, the examiner contends that in order to operate/function all of these elements must inherently/necessarily be electrically connected to the controller).
Pan discloses an intense pulsed light tube for the light source (Par 0059), and therefore fails to explicitly teach a laser, as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches a similar laser hair removal device (Par 0002; Figs. 2-4) including a laser source (VCSEL array 4) comprising a substrate (package substrate 3) and a plurality of laser chips (“multiple VCSEL chips”; at least Pars 0030, 0035 and 0041-42), wherein the plurality of laser chips is disposed on the substrate (Figs. 2-4; Par 0035), and emits laser beams (3 arrows in Fig. 2 extending from the VCSEL array 4 and exiting the device at the optical window 6; see also Par 0042), the laser beam is perpendicular to the substrate (Par 0029; Fig. 2. Furthermore, Par 0003 of applicant’s specification makes it clear that this is an inherent feature/property of VCSEL sources). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the IPL tube light source taught by Pan for the VCSEL array taught Li as a simple substitution of one known light source for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. perform laser hair removal and/or other laser dermatological treatments with a portable, hand-held device.
Pan and Li are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach wherein a first end of the radiator thermally contacts the light source and a second end of the radiator is connected to the cooling fan. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tankovich discloses a cooling system (Fig. 6A) for a laser dermatological handpiece which includes a radiator (thermal sink) and a fan (31). Specifically, the cooling system of Tankovich is arranged such that a first end of the radiator (top of thermal sink 29) thermally contacts the light sources/lasers (5 and 6) and a second end of the radiator (bottom) is connected to the cooling fan (31). It is noted that while a physical connection between the fan and the thermal sink is not shown in the drawings, at the very least is inherent/implicit via the housing (1), as these elements are not floating within the housing and are clearly secured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Pan and Li such that the radiator, fan and laser sources (including the substrate) are arranged in the claimed manner, i.e. a radiator in between the fan (on one end) and the light/laser sources (on the opposite/other end), as taught by Tankovich, as this is mere rearrangement of parts that is known/used in the art for similar cooling systems in laser dermatological devices.
[Claim 2] Pan discloses a semiconductor cooling sheet (refrigeration element 223, Figs. 7 and 11) and a heat transmitter (heat conductive element 2113),wherein a cooling surface (refrigeration surface 2232; Fig. 13) of the semiconductor cooling sheet abuts the optical waveguide (Figs. 7, 11 and 13; Pars 0056 and 0064-66), and a heating surface (heating surface 2231; Fig. 13) of the semiconductor cooling sheet abuts the heat transmitter (Fig 11; Pars 0064-66), wherein the heat transmitter (2113) is connected to the heat dissipation unit (Figs. 5 and 11; Par 0064).
As seen in Fig. 11, the first end of the heat transmitter (2113) covers the majority of heating surface (top portion) of the semiconductor cooling sheet (223), but fails to explicitly teach covering the entire heating surface, i.e. a small portion of the top of 223 is left unexposed. However, it is emphasized that applicant has no criticality or unexpected result for this size/shape, as it is never once discussed in applicant’s specification. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that it would be obvious to change the size/shape of the first end of the heat transmitter so that it entirely covers the heating surface of the semiconductor cooling sheet, as a matter of routine engineering/design considerations, specifically changes in size/shape have been held to be obvious; MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, it seems to be common sense to increase/maximize the surface area of the contact portion between these two surfaces in order to optimize the heat transfer between these two elements, as a matter of routine optimization.
[Claim 3] Pan discloses an optical waveguide holder (see zoomed-in portion of Fig. 8, below. While the holder is not an element that is specifically labelled or discussed in the specification, it’s clear from the drawings that such a holder exists; see element surrounding cold compress portion 221 with screws, a cavity/opening and a bottom lip where the optical waveguide is held), wherein the optical waveguide holder is provided with a fixing slot (cavity/opening; see zoomed-in Fig. 8, below), the optical waveguide (221) is disposed in the fixing slot (as can be seen in the figure, the optical waveguide is disposed within the cavity formed between the two sides with the screws), a first surface (top) of the optical waveguide is exposed by the fixing slot, and the cooling surface (refrigeration surface 2232) of the semiconductor cooling sheet (223) abuts the first surface (top; as shown in Figs. 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12) of the optical waveguide (Par 0065)
PNG
media_image1.png
358
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Claim 4] Pan discloses an optical waveguide cover plate (heat conductive component 212; Figs. 6, 8 and 10-13), wherein the optical waveguide cover plate (212), along with the optical waveguide holder (holder with screws, as discussed in claim 3, above), fixes the optical waveguide (221), and the optical waveguide cover plate (212) covers the first surface (top) of the optical waveguide (Figs. 10 and 13), wherein the optical waveguide cover plate (212) exposes the heating surface of the semiconductor cooling sheet (223) on the first surface of the optical waveguide via a through hole (vents 2121, 2122 and 2124; Figs. 10-13) and covers a remaining portion of the first surface of the optical waveguide (Figs. 10-13; Pars 0063-66. Specifically, as best seen in Figs. 10 and 13, the vents of the optical waveguide cover plate 212 expose the top/heating surface of the semiconductor cooling sheet 223 on the top/first surface of waveguide 221 while the solid portions of the cover plate 212 cover the rest of the top/first surface of the waveguide 221)
[Claim 5] Pan and Li are silent to the specific wavelength of the light source, but it is emphasized that Pan discloses “A light color emitted by the emitter is not limited, the light may be a colored light, a composite light, or the like, and a specific wavelength and a frequency are determined according to a use situation.” (Par 0059). However, in the same field of endeavor, Tankovich discloses multiple wavelengths in the claimed range, e.g. 540 nm, 700 nm, 810 nm, 980 nm and 1064 nm (Par 0066), which are suitable for laser dermatological treatments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to choose/try any of the disclosed wavelengths taught by Tankovich, including wavelengths in the range of 500 nm to 1200 nm, for the light source taught by Pan/Li, as these are known and used wavelengths in similar dermatological/cosmetic laser treatments.
[Claims 6 and 11] The combination of Pan, Li and Tankovich disclose the use different wavelengths (Par 0053 of Li and Pars 0065-66 of Tankovich). Therefore, in the proposed combination, a light source (different/additional from the laser recited in claim 1, e.g. one of the laser chips taught by Li or one of the laser source 5 or 6 taught by Tankovich) is interpreted as the function indicator board disposed on a side of the optical waveguide close to the laser that illuminates the optical waveguide to indicate a hair removal area. The examiner contends that any visible/colored light that is emitted through the optical waveguide reads on the claimed structure. Regarding the claimed location of the function indicator board, i.e. disposed on the optical waveguide cover plate, the examiner considers this rearrangement of parts, and it would be obvious to try/choose any desired location/arrangement where the light is sent through the optical waveguide towards the treatment area/skin.
Regarding the plurality of light markers with different colors, as discussed above, Pan discloses colored light and composite light, i.e. light of multiple colors (Par 0059). Similarly, Li and Tankovich disclose the use of different wavelengths of light, with Tankovich explicitly teaching both red (700 nm) and green (540 nm) light. The examiner considers the limitation “wherein the function indicator board (5) indicates levels and functions of the handheld home laser hair removal device through the different colors” to be functional language/intended use. The examiner contends that the different colored lights/wavelengths taught by these references can be used for any purpose, including indications of levels and functions, as this function is not tied to any particular structure; see MPEP 2114.
[Claim 7] Pan is discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach a heat sink. However, Li discloses a heat sink (2) abutting the substrate (3) of light source (4); see Par 0030 and Figs. 2-3. A similar arrangement of a heat sink (29) abutting a substrate of the light source (5 and 6) is taught by Tankovich (Fig. 6A), as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Pan and Li to add/include a heat sink that abuts the substrate of the light source to remove heat from the light source and provide an additional cooling effect to the light source (in addition to the cooling unit, i.e. refrigeration element 223 of Pan and semiconductor chilling plates 7 of Li), as taught by Li. The examiner contends that in the proposed combination, the first end of the radiator (2114) thermally contacts the substrate of the laser via the heat sink. If applicant disagrees, the examiner considers this a rearrangement of parts, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange these elements in any order that is deemed to effectively remove heat.
[Claim 13] As shown best in Figs. 13 and 15, the fan 211 has a ventilation surface that faces the radiator (2114). The examiner takes official notice that there are only two types of fans, i.e. variable speed and constant speed, and it would be obvious to try/choose either type of known fan in order to provide the necessary air flow/cooling disclosed by Pan.
[Claims 14 and 15] As best shown in Fig. 4 of Li, the VSCEL includes a matrix of laser chips, i.e. rows and columns of laser chips with a gap between the chips. Li is silent to the size of the gap and the spacing of the row and columns. However, this is considered an obvious change in size and/or rearrangement of parts. It is emphasized that applicant has no criticality or unexpected result to the row/column spacing or the gap between the chips. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would choose the desired spacing and gap, as desired to provide the desired light emission; see MPEP 2144.04 and 2144.05. “The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”.
[Claim 16] Pan fails to show/disclose the location of the controller within the hand-held housing (shell 1). However, there are a limited amount of positions within this housing where the controller could be located. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try/choose any location for the controller within the hand-held housing (1) of Pan, including contacting a side surface of the radiator between the first end of the radiator and the second end of the radiator, if so desired, as a mere rearrangement of parts and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights