DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 34-45 are pending.
Claims 4-8 and 14-33 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ward et al. (US 20130211481 A1, 2013-08-15) (hereinafter “Ward”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, and 13, Ward teaches a system (100) for treating nails, comprising: a pulse light emission device (202) making it possible to expose at least one nail to be treated to at least one light pulse (Fig. 3), at least one coating, or an applicator of such a coating to be applied to the nail or nails (e.g., [0061]), absorbing the light emitted by the device, and the surface temperature of which can exceed 60°C, under the effect of the light emitted by the device (e.g., [0054], [0061]) (as recited in claim 1); the coating being of transmissivity less than or equal to 20% (e.g., [0061]) (as recited in claim 2); comprising a support (102) for maintaining an output window (106), through which the light leaves the device, at a predefined distance from a reception surface of the nail to be treated (e.g., Fig. 2) (as recited in claim 11); comprising a tubular end-fitting, having an internal surface that is at least partially reflective, the end-fitting being fixed at one of its ends to the output window of an optical head of the device and comprising, at its other end, a zone for receiving at least one digit such that the nail of this digit is positioned to receive the light emitted by the optical head (e.g., [0048]; Figs. 1-3) (as recited in claim 13).
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.
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.
Claims 3, 9,10, 34-38, and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward.
Regarding claims 3, 9,10, 34-38, and 41-45, Ward teaches a system for treating nails (and a method of use), as discussed above. Ward does not expressly disclose the recited operating/treatment parameters.
However, Ward teaches use of various light sources with various operational wattage and wavelengths (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099]), use of temperature-sensitive dyes (e.g., [0061]), various eye protection (e.g., [0034]), and mechanical processing of the treatment area (e.g., [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Ward such that the coating comprising a film of dark color (e.g., [0061]) (as recited in claim 3); the pulsed light emission device being configured to emit a burst of light pulses at a frequency lying between 0.5 and 20 Hz (e.g., [0027]), each pulse exhibiting a fluence such that, given the distance separating an output window of the coating device during use, it lies between 0.5 and 5 J/cm2 on the coating surface (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099]) (as recited in claim 9); the device emitting substantially between the wavelengths of 675 nm and 1200 nm, the system comprising a pair of protective goggles or a protective mask for the operator (e.g., [0034]), comprising a filter absorbing the light emitted by the emission device having a transmission factor less than or equal to 1% above approximately 650 nm (e.g., [0034]) (as recited in claim 10); a method for improving the appearance of at least one nail, as discussed above, comprising the step of applying to the nail a coating absorbing the light emitted during the treatment, of positioning an output window of a light pulse emission device relative to the nail such that the light emitted by the device is directed toward the nail, and of subjecting the duly coated nail to at least one pulse so that the temperature measured at the surface of the coating can reach at least 60°C for a duration of at least 0.1 s (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 34); the coating having a reflectivity less than 50% (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 35); the coating having a transmissivity less than 50% (as recited in claim 36); the coating resisting a temperature of at least 60°C (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 37); wherein a reflecting coating is applied to the periphery of the nail (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 38); comprising the step of abrading the surface of the nail to be treated prior to the application of the absorbent coating (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 41); comprising the step of using a support such that the coating is situated at a predefined distance between 1 and 6 cm from the light output window (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 42); wherein a protective screen is disposed on top of the skin of the digit (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 43); wherein the nail is subjected to a number of pulses between 2 and 20 (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088])(as recited in claim 44); wherein after the emission of a burst, the nail is left to cool for a duration of at least 30 s (e.g., [0025]-[0027], [0096], [0099], [0061], [0034], [0088]) (as recited in claim 45) in order to satisfy the particular requirements of a specific treatment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Cumbie et al. (US 20090143842 A1, 2009-06-04) (hereinafter “Cumbie”).
Regarding claim 12, Ward teaches a system for treating nails (and a method of use), as discussed above. Ward does not expressly disclose a sole plate. Cumbie teaches a soleplate (e.g., 126, Fig. 6) for phototherapy of the foot (e.g., [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Ward with the teachings of Cumbie such that the invention further comprises a soleplate defining the reception surface, and a raised part under which the foot can be fitted, provided with at least one aperture under which at least one of the nails can be disposed an optical head being disposed in or above the aperture in order to secure the foot during the treatment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed invention of a system for treating nails (and a method of use) comprising the recited elements/steps, including the absorbent coating being composed of a preformed film (as recited in claim 39); the film being precut substantially to the format of the nail to be treated, or of a part of the nail to be treated (as recited in claim 40).
For these reasons the claims are believed to be allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan, Ph.D.
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792