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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fujikawa does not teach either of the control conditions required by amended claim 1. Moreover, Applicant argues that Fujikawa explicitly requires that multiple conditions be simultaneously satisfied before the flashlight emits light.
Examiner acknowledges that Fujikawa requires multiple conditions to be simultaneously satisfied before light is emitted by the depilation device (Fujikawa, [0032]). Nevertheless, Examiner asserts that the amended limitations of claim 1 do not require that the light only be emitted in response to a single condition.
Examiner asserts that Fujikawa does discloses the control conditions required by amended claim 1 and has provided an example for each condition:
Regarding condition (1), “cause the light source to emit the light after the skin comes into contract with the second surface of the skin cooling unit”. Examiner asserts that in a scenario (using the device of Fujikawa) where the irradiation switch is pushed and the distal end of the light shielding pipe is in intimate contact with the skin, having the skin come into contact with the second surface of the skin cooling unit (depression amount of the light shielding pipe is equal to or greater than a preset depression amount) would cause the light source to emit light. Examiner notes that the light would specifically be emitted after the skin comes into contact with the second surface of the skin cooling unit, as this contact would result in all three conditions being met.
Regarding condition (2), “causes the light source to emit the light immediately after the push switch is pressed”, Examiner asserts that pressing the push switch on a depilation device where a) the depression amount is equal to or greater than a preset depression amount and b) the distal end of the light shielding pipe is in intimate contact with the skin, would cause the light source to emit light immediately after the push button was pressed. Examiner notes that the light would be emitted immediately after the push button is pressed, as pressing the push button makes it such that all three conditions required by Fujikawa are met.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (US 2010/0152719) in view of PAN et al. (US 2022/0118278).
In re claim 1, Fujikawa discloses a light-emitting depilation device (FIG. 1 ; abstract) comprising:
a light source (2/20) that emits light having a wavelength;
a *skin cooling unit (4; [0021]: “lamp cover”) that
faces the light source [0021],
transmits the light emitted from the light source [0021], and
is configured to cool skin upon coming into contact with the skin (see * below) ;
a push switch (6; [0024] : “light shielding pipe”) that includes a pressing unit (6) surrounding an outer periphery of a light source and the skin cooling unit (FIG. 1); and
a controller (5) comprising a read-only memory storing a program (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, control circuit (5) acts as a read only memory as it a) cannot be altered and b) stores information including instructions (i.e., conditions that must be met)),
wherein
the skin cooking unit has
a first surface facing the light source (bottom surface of 2/20) and
a second surface opposite to the first surface (top surface of 2/20), and
the second surface is to be brought in **contact with the skin,
when the pressing unit is not being pressed, the pressing unit extend beyond the second surface of the skin cooling unit (FIG. 1),
when the pressing unit is pressed by the skin, a surface (11) of the pressing unit is pressed by the skin [0024] to be moved closer to the light source compared with when the pressing unit is not being pressed until the second surface of the skin cooling unit comes into **contact with the skin (FIG. 1, FIG. 2),
the push switch switches to cause the light source to emit the light and not to emit the light and to cause the light source to
***keep emitting the light at least for a part of time while the pressing unit is pressed [0029], and
not to emit the light while the pressing unit is not pressed [0029], and
the program when executed by the controller causes the controller to:
(1) cause the light source to emit the light after the skin comes into contact with the second surface of the skin cooling unit ([0032]; Examiner notes that other conditions in addition to the skin coming into contact with the second surface of the skin cooling unit are required for the light to be emitted. However, under BRI, this limitation is still met), or
(2) cause the light source to emit the light immediately after the push switch is pressed ([0032]; Examiner notes that other conditions in addition to the push switch being pressed are required for the light to be emitted. However, under BRI, this limitation is still met).
*It is apparent that the lamp cover is cooler than the skin it contacts. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the lamp cover can act as a skin cooling unit by effectively cooling the skin upon application
**The limitation “contact with the skin” is intended use and have been given patentable weight only in how they materially alter or add structure to the apparatus of the claim. See MPEP 2114. The prior art need only be able to perform these functions in order to anticipate the claimed invention. It is clear that the system of Fujikawa could be operated in the claimed manner if desired.
***Examiner notes that other conditions in addition to the pressing unit being pressed are required for the light to be emitted (see [0030-0031]). However, under BRI, this limitation is still met.
Fujikawa does not disclose
a light source that emits light having a wavelength of 400 nm or longer and 1200 nm or shorter;
PAN discloses an analogous depilation device that emits light having a variety of wavelengths ranging from 400 nm to 1200 nm [0026-0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depilation device of Fujikawa to include the wavelength range taught by PAN. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the range of wavelengths is known in the art, and the result of the modification, using light to remove hair, is reasonably predictable.
As disclosed above, it is apparent that the lamp cover of Fujikawa can act as a skin cooling unit. However, in so far as this is not explicitly stated, claim 1 is alternatively rejected as follows:
Fujikawa may be interpreted as lacking
a cooling unit
PAN discloses an analogous depilation device (abstract) with a cooling unit (FIG. 1, 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depilation device of Fujikawa to include a cooling unit, as taught by PAN. One would have been motivated to make this modification because cooling the skin can help to mitigate skin irritation (PAN, [0080]).
In re claim 3, Fujikawa lacks:
wherein the light source includes a light-emitting diode (LED)
Pan further discloses an analogous light source wherein the light source includes a light-emitting diode (LED) [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Fujikawa to include a light emitting diode, as taught by Pan. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because light emitting diodes are known in the art and the result of the modification, providing light, is reasonably predictable.
In re claim 4, regarding the limitation wherein the skin cooling unit is cooled to -5°C or higher and 35°C or lower.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the temperature of the skin cooling unit. One would have been motivated to make this modification since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 5, regarding the limitation wherein a total light transmittance of the skin cooling unit is 80% or higher.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the light transmittance of the skin cooling unit. One would have been motivated to make this modification since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 6, regarding the limitation wherein the skin cooling unit includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Al203, ZnO, ZrO2, MgO, GaN, AlN, and diamond.
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 material of the skin cooling unit. One would have been motivated to make this modification, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07.
In re claim 9, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Fujikawa) wherein the program when executed by the controller causes the controller to:
(1) cause the light source to emit the light after the skin comes into contact with the second surface of the skin cooling unit ([0032]; Examiner notes that other conditions in addition to the skin coming into contact with the second surface of the skin cooling unit are required for the light to be emitted. However, under BRI, this limitation is still met).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Fujikawa) wherein the program when executed by the controller causes the controller to:
(2) cause the light source to emit the light immediately after the push switch is pressed ([0032]; Examiner notes that other conditions in addition to the push switch being pressed are required for the light to be emitted. However, under BRI, this limitation is still met).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (US 2010/0152719) in view of PAN et al. (US 2022/0118278) and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 7,329,252).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination does not yield wherein the light source emits light intermittently under conditions of
an irradiance of 15 W/cm2 or higher and 50 W/cm2 or lower and
an irradiation time of 500 ms or longer and 1000 ms or shorter.
Yamazaki discloses an analogous laser depilation device (abstract) that follows light application with a period of dormancy (Col. 2, Lines 62-67 – Col. 3, Line 1).
Yamazaki further discloses that this operation-and-dormancy sequence is repeated to help reduce skin damage (Col. 3, Lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination to intermittently deliver light, as taught by Yamazaki. One would have been motivated to make this modification because introducing periods of dormancy is an effective way to avoid skin damage (Yamazaki : Col. 3, Lines 2-4).
Regarding the limitations
an irradiance of 15 W/cm2 or higher and 50 W/cm2 or lower and
an irradiation time of 500 ms or longer and 1000 ms or shorter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the irradiance and irradiation time. One would have been motivated to make this modification since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Connors et al. (US 2004/0082941) discloses a hair removal device with a cooling surface (abstract).
Jones et al. (US 2016/0374758) discloses an apparatus for treating the skin using intense pulsed light (abstract).
Grove et al. (US 2004/0167499) discloses a dermatologic treatment apparatus that delivers eye-safe light pulses (abstract).
Anderson et al. (US 5,735,844) discloses a hair removal device with a cooled applicator, used to minimize skin irritation (abstract).
Island et al. (US 2004/0176754) discloses a laser hair removal device (Figure 1; [0019]) that includes a skin cooling unit (Figure 2B: 22) and a press mechanism (26) for detecting whether or not the laser hair removal device is in contact with skin (abstract).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights