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
Rejections under 35 USC 112
In regards to Applicant’s response filed 11/25/2025, the amended claims have overcome the rejections made under 35 USC 112 in the Non-Final Office Action filed 08/25/2025. The rejections under 35 USC 112 are hereby withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 11/25/2025 and 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 22 and 23 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previously presented prior art does not anticipate the limitation ‘where the one or more sensors do not extend width wise nor are disposed beyond the first and second ends of the output window.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the cited electrodes, including electrode pair 607 and 608 pictured in Oberreiter Fig. 6C and electrode pairs 611/617, 612/616, and 613/615 pictured in Fig. 6D, meet the limitations of the amended claims. Examiner is interpreting sensor pair 607/608 in Fig. 6C and/or sensor pairs 611/617, 612/616, and 613/615 in Fig. 6D, which are in electrical contact with one another in order to alert the safety mechanism of the device and signal that the device may be activated, as the ‘one or more sensors’ as limited in the claim. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language does not limit the device to where any and all sensors must not extend width wise nor be disposed beyond the first and second ends of the output window, just that one or more sensors must meet this limitation. Therefore, the placement of sensors 607 and 608 in Fig. 6C, and optionally sensors 611, 612, 613, 615, 616, and 617 in Fig. 6D meet the limitation of the claim and the locations of additional sensors does not matter.
With this in consideration, the rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 USC 102 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 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. In light of the amendments to the independent claims which incorporate the limitations of now-cancelled claim 20, limiting the skin treatment device to a handheld Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) device, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13, 15, 17, and 21 in view of Oberreiter and Goer are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is detailed below in view of Oberreiter and Intintoli et al (US 20140277299 A1).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 09/14/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 13, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “[…] and where the first and second sensors in the engaged configuration.” The limitation is unclear because it does not establish what happens to the sensors in the engaged configuration. Based upon the claims filed 09/14/2023, Examiner is interpreting the limitation as the same as the previously presented claim, “where the first and second sensors remain exposed in the engaged configuration.” Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Oberreiter et al (US 20080140164 A1).
Regarding claim 22 Oberreiter teaches a handheld Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) device (200) comprising:
- a housing (see Fig. 2A; housing 210);
- a light source housed within the housing for discharging light energy pulses (see Fig. 1, [0036]; light source 120);
- a control system for controlling discharge of the light source (see Fig. 1, [0045]; controller 140 also referred to as processor 140 controls operation of the device);
- the housing having a head portion (see Fig. 2A, [0039]; head portion 212 including user interface 218) comprising a recessed zone (see Fig. 2A; light emitting channel 202) defined between opposing shoulders for receipt of a user body portion, with an output window in the recessed zone for transmission of the light energy pulses emitted by the light source to external of the housing onto a skin treatment area, the output window having a width and a height, the width defined by first and second ends and extending in a direction between the opposing shoulders (see annotated Fig. 2A below); and
- one or more sensors disposed in the housing for sensing a user body portion on opposing sides of the output window where the one or more sensors do not extend width wise nor are disposed beyond the first and second ends of the output window (see Figs. 6C having sensors 607/608 or 6D having sensors 611-613/615-617 located on opposite sides of the output window without extending or being disposed beyond the width of the output window);
where the control system is arranged to receive sensor outputs from the one or more sensors and based on the sensor outputs control operation of the device (see [0008]; controller is configured to receive signal(s) from contact sensors and prevent activation of light source based upon the sensor signal).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It can be appreciated that Figs. 6A-E demonstrate multiple configurations of sensors 601-619, where the dotted lines between opposing sensors represent linear paths which, when in contact with the user’s skin, will close the safety switch and enable activation of the device (Oberreiter [0091]). Oberreiter specifically points to Fig. 6C, which shows a first set of sensors 607 and 608 and a second set of sensors 606 and 609, where the first set 607/608 does not extend width wise nor are disposed beyond the first and second ends of the output window, and states that the safety switch will close when either pair of contact sensors are in contact with the user’s skin (Oberreiter Fig. 6C, [0091-0092]).
Examiner is interpreting sensors 607 and 608 which are in electrical contact with one another as the ‘one or more sensors’ as limited in the claim. The claim language does not limit the device to where any and all sensors must not extend width wise nor be disposed beyond the first and second ends of the output window, just that one or more sensors must meet this limitation. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the placement of sensors 607 and 608 in Fig. 6C, and optionally sensors 611, 612, 613, 615, 616, and 617 in Fig. 6D meet the limitation of the claim and the locations of additional sensors does not matter.
Regarding claim 23, Oberreiter teaches the skin treatment device of claim 22. Oberreiter further teaches wherein the head portion is integrated with the housing (see [0039]; the housing may be one contiguous molded piece).
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 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberreiter et al (US 20080140164 A1) in view of Intintoli et al (US 20140277299 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oberreiter teaches a handheld Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) device (200) comprising:
- a housing (see Fig. 2A; housing 210);
- a light source housed within the housing for discharging light energy pulses (see Fig. 1, [0036]; light source 120);
- a control system for controlling discharge of the light source (see Fig. 1, [0045]; controller 140 also referred to as processor 140 controls operation of the device);
- a housing output window in the housing for transmission of the light energy pulses emitted by the light source to external of the housing onto a skin treatment area (see Fig. 2A; [0063]; light transmission channel 202);
- one or more sensors disposed in the housing adjacent the housing output window to provide a plurality of sensing zones (see Figs. 6A-6E; illustrating various arrangements of contact sensors 601-619); where the control system is arranged to receive one or more sensor outputs from the one or more sensors and based on the one or more sensor outputs control operation of the device (see [0008]; controller is configured to receive signal(s) from contact sensors and prevent activation of light source based upon the sensor signal).
Oberreiter is silent regarding a head portion arranged to be releasably engaged with the housing and having a shield portion and a head window portion, where in an engaged configuration the shield portion partially shields the output window to reduce the skin treatment area and leaves one or more of the plurality of sensing zones exposed.
Intintoli teaches a handheld pulsed light device for skin treatment (10) having a window (18) to deliver phototherapy to a desired area. Intintoli’s device has an array of ports 30, in which several sensors 32, 34, 36, and 38 may be connected, and additionally has a spring-actuated contact sensor 40 provided behind the head window portion 16. Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, namely the limitation of one or more sensors disposed in the housing adjacent to the housing window, the sensors are disposed in the housing of device 10 and are reasonably considered to be adjacent to the head window portion 18 (Intintoli [0028]).
Intintoli teaches a head portion arranged to be releasably engaged with the housing and having a shield portion (70) and a head window portion (16), where in an engaged configuration the shield portion partially shields the output window to reduce the skin treatment area and leaves one or more of the plurality of sensing zones exposed (see Intintoli Fig. 4, [0034-0035]; aperture 70 can be removably attached to the front cover 16 to assist in focusing the UVB radiation on the desired treatment area by having an opening 80 that is smaller than head window 18, [0028]; the ports 30 are positioned so that, if necessary, any sensors mounted in the ports 30 have a clear optical path through the window 16). Note that the heat dissipation structure 64 pictured in Fig. 3 also meets the limitations of the claim for the same reasons as described above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with the shield portion as taught by Intintoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control the intensity and delivery of light therapy to the desired treatment area (Intintoli [0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter is silent regarding wherein the head comprises a recessed portion arranged to receive a user body portion.
Intintoli teaches the head portion comprising a recessed portion arranged to receive a user body portion (Intintoli [0034-0035]; the opening 80 of aperture 70 may be completely open and is placed into contact with the user’s skin)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s skin treatment device with a recessed portion to receive a user body portion as taught by Goer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to activate the pulsed light therapy only at a desired time when the device is placed against the target treatment area (Intintoli [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 2. Oberreiter is silent regarding wherein the recessed portion is disposed between opposing shoulders.
Intintoli teaches wherein the recessed portion is disposed between opposing shoulders (see Fig. 4, [0034]; where the recessed portion, window 80, is disposed between opposing shoulders, which may be opposite sides of tapered portion 76 including the lip of the window, and/or the sides of aperture base 72 located on opposing sides of the tapered portion 76).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with Intintoli’s recessed portion supported by opposing shoulders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to support the recessed portion of the removable shield so that the shield may be attached to the housing (Intintoli [0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter is silent regarding wherein the head is rigid.
Intintoli teaches wherein the head is rigid (see Intintoli [0034-0035]; the aperture is placed in contact with the skin to depress spring-actuated contact sensor 40, so it can be appreciated that the head must be made of a material with enough rigidity to exert the necessary force to depress sensor 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with Intintoli’s rigid head assembly including a shield portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to establish contact with a treatment area of a user and exert a force which may generate a signal to the control system that the device is in place against the skin of a user (Intintoli [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter is silent regarding the window portion of the head comprising an opening.
Intintoli teaches the window portion of the head comprising an opening (see Intintoli Fig. 4, [0034]; opening 80 may be completely open).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with the head window portion comprising an opening as taught by Intintoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to focus the transmission of the pulsed beam to a desired treatment area (Intintoli [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter further teaches wherein the housing output window is defined by a width and a height, where the width is greater than the height (see Oberreiter Fig. 2A light transmission channel 202 having a width greater than its height). Oberreiter is silent regarding where the shield portion shields the output window to reduce the width of the light transmission area in the engaged configuration.
Intintoli teaches where the shield portion shields the output window to reduce the width of the light transmission area in the engaged configuration (see Intintoli Fig. 4, [0034]; the opening 80 of aperture 70 is smaller than the housing output window 18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with the head window portion comprising an opening which reduces the width of the light transmission area as taught by Intintoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to focus the transmission of the pulsed beam to a desired treatment area (Intintoli [0034]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 9. Oberreiter is silent regarding where the head output window is defined by a width and a height aligned with the width and height respectively of the housing output window in the engaged configuration, where the width of the head output window is less than the height of the head output window; and
wherein the height of the head output window is greater than the height of the housing output window.
Intintoli teaches where the head output window (80) is aligned with the width and height of the housing output window in the engaged configuration (see Intintoli [0034]; where the aperture 70 is configured to be aligned with output window 18 and snap onto the front of the housing) and may have any shape or size (Intintoli [0034]). It can be appreciated that therefore, the head output window as taught by Intintoli may have a width that is less than the height of the head output window and/or the height of the head output window is greater than the height of the housing output window.
It would have been an obvious design choice, in accordance with the teachings of the prior art, for one of ordinary skill to modify the head output window having a height greater than the housing output window in order to define the desired dimensions of the target site, since such a modification would have involved the mere change in the size of a component. A change in the relative dimension of the device of the prior art of Goer and the claimed invention will not perform differently than the device of the prior art. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338; MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter further teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least first (607) and second (608) sensors disposed in the housing on diametrically opposing first and second sides of the housing output window. See annotated Fig. 6C below.
PNG
media_image2.png
262
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
They are silent regarding where the first and second sensors remain exposed in the engaged configuration.
Intintoli teaches one or more sensors (sensors 32, 34, 36, 38 in ports 30) where at least a first and second sensor are disposed in the housing diametrically opposing one another (see Intintoli Fig. 2; ports 30 in two rows where a port on the top row and the corresponding position on the bottom row may be considered to diametrically oppose one another), and where the first and second sensors remain exposed in the engaged configuration (see Intintoli [0028]; the ports are positioned so that, if necessary, any sensors mounted in the ports 30 have a clear optical path through the window 18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with the first and second sensors that remain exposed in an engaged configuration with the shield portion taught by Intintoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order not to obstruct the sensing zones established by the sensors.
Regarding claim 13, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 11. Oberreiter further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises third (606) and fourth (609) sensors disposed in the housing on diametrically opposing third and fourth sides of the housing output window. See annotated Fig. 6C below.
PNG
media_image3.png
216
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter is silent regarding wherein the shield portion further shields one or more of the sensors in the engaged configuration.
Intintoli teaches wherein the shield portion further shields one or more of the sensors in the engaged configuration (see Intintoli [0028]; contact sensor 40 is provided behind the front cover 16, and aperture 70 is attached onto the front side of cover 16, therefore shielding sensor 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with Intintoli’s shield. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to sense contact between the user and the device when the shield portion is in an engaged configuration (Intintoli [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter is silent regarding wherein the head does not include any sensors.
Intintoli teaches the head not including any sensors (see Fig. 4; where aperture 70 does not include any sensors).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL with the shield portion taught by Intintoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to focus the beam on the desired treatment area (Intintoli [0034]) without contributing to any additional computational cost of the sensors array disposed within the housing.
Regarding claim 21, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. Oberreiter is silent regarding the device being operable both with and without the head engaged with the housing.
Intintoli teaches the device being operable both with and without the head engaged with the housing (see Intintoli [0035]; in operation, the device is positioned so that the window 18 or the opening 80 is aligned with the area of skin to be treated).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oberreiter’s IPL device with the optional shield portion of Intintoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to selectively choose the size of the window to deliver a therapeutic beam based on what is appropriate for the desired treatment area (Intintoli [0035]).
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberreiter et al (US 20080140164 A1) in view of Intintoli et al (US 20140277299 A1) and Schwarz et al (US 20200139148 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 2. They are silent regarding wherein the recessed portion is concave.
Schwarz teaches a skin treatment device having a head portion configured to engage with a user body portion comprising a recessed portion wherein the recessed portion is concave (see Schwarz Figs. 3d-3e, [0104]; patient interfacing portion 701 having a concave ‘U’ shape).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter and Intintoli having a recessed portion within the head with the concave recessed portion as taught by Schwarz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to engage with a user body portion in a manner that conforms to the target site and securely engages with said target (Schwarz [0104]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein the curvature of the concave recessed portion is defined at least in part by a curvature radius, the curvature radius having a numerical value defined by the width of the head window as shielded plus a predetermined value, wherein the predetermined value is 20-60mm.
Schwarz teaches wherein the curvature of the concave recessed portion is defined at least in part by a curvature radius (see Schwarz Fig. 3e, [0104]; U shaped portion 701 having a curvature radius), the curvature radius having a numerical value defined by the width of the head window as shielded plus a predetermined value, wherein the predetermined value is 20-60mm (see Schwarz [0104]; the curvature radius of U shaped portion 701 is in the range of 10 to 750 mm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter and Intintoli with the concave recessed portion having a curvature radius as taught by Schwarz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain secure and stable contact with the target body portion during the duration of user treatment (Schwarz [0104]).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberreiter et al (US 20080140164 A1) in view of Schwarz et al (US 20200139148 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Oberreiter and teaches the handheld IPL device of claim 23. They are silent regarding wherein the recessed portion is concave.
Schwarz teaches a skin treatment device having a head portion configured to engage with a user body portion comprising a recessed portion wherein the recessed portion is concave (see Schwarz Figs. 3d-3e, [0104]; patient interfacing portion 701 having a concave ‘U’ shape).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter having a recessed portion within the head with the concave recessed portion as taught by Schwarz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to engage with a user body portion in a manner that conforms to the target site and securely engages with said target (Schwarz [0104]).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Oberreiter teaches the handheld IPL device of claim 24. They are silent regarding wherein the curvature of the concave recessed portion is defined at least in part by a curvature radius, the curvature radius having a numerical value defined by the width of the head window as shielded plus a predetermined value, wherein the predetermined value is 20-60mm.
Schwarz teaches wherein the curvature of the concave recessed portion is defined at least in part by a curvature radius (see Schwarz Fig. 3e, [0104]; U shaped portion 701 having a curvature radius), the curvature radius having a numerical value defined by the width of the head window as shielded plus a predetermined value, wherein the predetermined value is 20-60mm (see Schwarz [0104]; the curvature radius of U shaped portion 701 is in the range of 10 to 750 mm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter with the concave recessed portion having a curvature radius as taught by Schwarz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain secure and stable contact with the target body portion during the duration of user treatment (Schwarz [0104]).
Claims 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberreiter et al (US 20080140164 A1) in view of Intintoli et al (US 20140277299 A1) and Duan (US 20220346871 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein the control system is configured to cause one or more of the sensors to be deactivated when the head is in the engaged configuration.
Duan teaches a skin treatment device having a housing (11) and a head portion comprising a shield portion (16), wherein the control system is configured to cause one or more of the sensors to be deactivated when the head is in the engaged configuration.
When shield portion 16 is attached to housing 11, they are electrically coupled via a magnetic member 161 on the shield and a magnetic member 113 on the housing. This coupling alerts the control system that a second sensing member 163 located on shield 16 is now in closest proximity to the user, and first sensing member 1324 located on the housing is ‘deactivated’ in a sense wherein it is no longer measuring the proximity via change in capacitance, but rather sending the measured capacitance from sensor 163 along to the controller (Duan [0124-0129]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter and Intintoli with the control system configured to deactivate one or more sensors when the head portion is engaged as taught by Duan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent ineffective light emitting caused by incorrect conduction of the first sensing element after the head portion comprising its own sensing element is engaged (Duan [0128]).
Regarding claim 15, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein the shield portion further shields one or more of the sensors in the engaged configuration.
Duan teaches a skin treatment device having a housing (11) and a head portion comprising a shield portion (16), wherein the shield portion further shields one or more of the sensors in the engaged configuration (see Duan Figs. 17-19, [0124]; when shield portion 16 is connected to the housing 11, sensing member 1324 on the housing is covered by shield portion 16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter and Intintoli with the shield portion which shields one or more of the sensors in the engaged configuration as taught by Duan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the target treatment area and sense the most accurately due to a change in the proximity of the housing to the user because of the engagement of the head portion (Duan [0119-0120]).
Regarding claim 16, Oberretier and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 11. They are silent regarding wherein the one or more sensors shielded by the shield portion are proximity sensors, and the shield portion is positioned adjacent to the one or more shielded proximity sensors.
Duan teaches wherein the one or more sensors shielded by the shield portion are proximity sensors (see Duan [0111]; first sensing member 1324 is a sensing metal sheet that senses changes in capacitance based on proximity to a user), and the shield portion is positioned adjacent to the one or more shielded proximity sensors (see Duan Figs. 17-19, [0119-0120]; the head portion 16 is placed adjacent to the housing 11 having the sensing member 1324 coupled to the head).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter and Intintoli with the proximity sensors shielded by the shield portion in an engaged configuration as taught by Duan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to sense the proximity of a user most accurately in order to prevent ineffective light emitting caused by incorrect conduction of the sensing element located on the housing (Duan [0128]).
Regarding claim 18, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein the head magnetically couples to the housing.
Duan teaches a skin treatment device having a housing and a head portion wherein the head magnetically couples to the housing (see Duan Figs. 18-19, [0119]; head 16 is attached to housing 11 via respective magnetic members 161 and 113).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter and Intintoli with the magnetically coupling head as taught by Duan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to securely and detachably couple the head portion to the housing portion (Duan [0119]).
Regarding claim 19, Oberreiter and Intintoli teach the handheld IPL device of claim 1. They are silent regarding an engagement sensor arrangement for determining whether the head is in the engaged configuration, and wherein the control system is operable to modify an operational parameter of the device dependent upon the engagement sensor arrangement output.
Duan teaches an engagement sensor arrangement (1324) for determining whether the head is in the engaged configuration (see Duan [0119-0120]; sensing member 1324 in the housing couples to sensing member 163 in the head portion), and wherein the control system is operable to modify an operational parameter of the device dependent upon the engagement sensor arrangement output (see Duan [0128-0129]; first sensing member 1324 sends the change in capacitance due to the second sensing member 163 to the control module and the control module controls the light emitting).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skin treatment device of Oberreiter and Intintoli with an engagement sensor arrangement to sense the engagement of the head portion and adjust the control accordingly as taught by Duan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent ineffective light emitting caused by incorrect conduction of the sensing element located on the housing (Duan [0128]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792