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 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 8 and 13 are 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 8 is unclear in the recitation that at least one of the holder and the applicator pad is made from a rigid material, particularly since the applicator pad includes the holder. Hence, it is impossible for just the applicator pad to be made from a rigid material since it inherently includes the holder. Further, the holder is part of the applicator pad and if it were made from a rigid material, then the applicator pad would also be made from a rigid material (at least in part).
Claim 13 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the applicator”, and should recite “the handheld applicator” to maintain consistent terminology in the claims.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben-Haim et al (2013/0072925).
Regarding claim 7, Ben-Haim et al provide an applicator pad (116) for a handheld applicator (114) for treating skin by microwave energy (Abstract and para. [0039], for example) comprising a first portion (206) configured to be attached to the skin, and a second portion (everything above 206) including a holder configured to receive an insertion portion of the applicator (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, the body of the holder (116) is made from a rigid material configured to engage the applicator. Regarding claim 9, there is a cap (i.e. window 152) transmissible to electromagnetic radiation and microwave energy (para. [0111], for example). Regarding claim 10, Ben-Haim also disclose a dressing (i.e. tissue interface (200)) which is also necessarily transmissible to electromagnetic radiation and microwave energy, the dressing being located between the skin and the applicator pad (Figure 11). Regarding claim 11, there are visible markings (214) in the form of apertures that may be used as markers.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taghizadeh (2015/0025513) in view of the teaching of Altshuler et al (2008/0058783).
Regarding claim 1, Taghizadeh provides a handheld applicator for treating skin with microwave energy (Figure 2 and para. [0071], for example) comprising an applicator housing (202) and a microwave emitter (220) configured to emit microwave energy for treating tissue. Taghizadeh discloses an actuator assembly to move the emitter (para. [0086]), which actuator may also optionally be used with the handheld device. However, Taghizadeh fails to expressly disclose the emitter is moved relative to the applicator. It is noted that Taghizadeh also discloses the use light in addition to the use of microwave energy to treat tissue (para. [0079], for example).
Altshuler et al disclose another device for treating the skin including a handheld device, an energy emitter and a means to move the emitter with respect to the housing to scan the treatment over a tissue surface. See, for example, paragraph [0107]. In particular, Altshuler et al primarily disclose the use of light energy (i.e. laser), but also disclose the use of microwave and RF energy (para. [0123], for example).
To have provided the Taghizadeh device with a stepper motor to move the microwave emitter relative to the housing to scan the treatment over a tissue surface would have been an obvious consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Altshuler et al fairly teach it is known to move an energy emitter across a skin surface to treat tissue in a similar hand-held skin treatment device.
Regarding claim 2, the actuator of Altshuler et al is used to move a waveguide (e.g. optical fiber) which would be a microwave waveguide in the instance of delivering microwave energy, as fairly taught by Taghizadeh and suggested by Altshuler et al. Regarding claims 3 and 4, the Altshuler et al actuator moves the waveguide rotationally about an axis and offset from the axis (see Figure 2B, for example). Regarding claim 5, the microwave emitter of Taghizadeh includes a tube (220) with the emitter arranged within the tube and would be offset with respect to the central axis of the tube based on the teaching of an actuator as taught by Altshuler et al. Regarding claim 6, Altshuler et al provide a rotatable junction for the waveguide (i.e. to create the pattern in Figure 2B), which would be a coaxial transmission line for the delivery of microwave energy.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taghizadeh (2015/0025513) in view of the teachings of Ben-Haim et al (2013/0072925) and Altshuler et al (2008/0058783).
Regarding claim 12, Taghizadeh in view of Altshuler et al disclose the handheld applicator of claim 1 as addressed above. Taghizadeh fails to expressly disclose a separable applicator pad for connecting to the applicator. However, as addressed previously, Ben-Haim et al teach that it is known to provide an applicator pad that may be attached to (and detached from) the handheld applicator to provide a removable skin contact surface for the handheld device.
To have provided the Taghizadeh device, as modified by the teaching of Altshuler et al, with a separable applicator pad to allow for re-use of the device during multiple treatments would have been an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Ben-Haim et al fairly teach it is known to provide an analogous microwave treatment device with a removable applicator pad for the treatment of skin tissue.
Regarding claim 13, Ben-Haim et al teach that an insertion portion of the applicator is inserted into the holder (Figures 2 and 3, for example). Regarding claims 14 and 15, Ben-Haim et al provide a locking means and a safety means to ensure the insertion portion is correctly positioned within the holder (para. [0043], for example). See, also, Figure 6 with magnetic securing means as discussed with respect to the associated description at paragraph [0047].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deem et al (10,463,429) and Hancock et al (2019/0216541) disclose other handheld device used to treat skin tissue with microwave energy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PEFFLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4770. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am-5 pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at (571) 272-4764. 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.
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/M.F.P/January 6, 2026