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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12 and 17-20, drawn to an electronic skin rejuvenating apparatus comprising circuitry, a light therapy system, a warming system, a vibrating massage system, a microcurrent therapy system, and a touch activation sensor that turns the device on using an impedance activation scheme, classified in A61N 1/328, A61F 7/00, A61H 2201/10.
II. Claims 13-16, drawn to a method of using an electronic rejuvenating device to treat a skin condition, comprising applying about 300 micro amps of current at a minimum pressure of about 0.1 PSI to 10 PSI to increase the amount of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) within the cells, to apply a vibration massage at a frequency of about 10 Hz to 50 Hz and a peak acceleration between about 0.1 g and about 0.9 g so the muscle is forced into a desired form for re-education and promotes local blood circulation, applying red light therapy at 660 nanometer and a blue light therapy at about 415 nm to boost the energy of the skin cells, soften the appearance of wrinkles and scars, and provide an overall radiance to the skin, and apply a heat treatment between about 100˚ and 101˚ F to improve blood flow and circulation, relieve pain, and decrease infection clogs around the eye area to alleviate dryness and redness, classified in A61N 5/0616, A61N 2005/0663, A61N 1/36034, A61N 1/36046, and A61F 9/00718.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process. For example, the product has the ability to provide a variety of therapies (light therapy, heat therapy, vibration therapy, and microcurrent therapy) and could be used to practice just one of those therapies such as a vibration massage to the body or a synergistic approach to a body area other than the eye area. In contrast, the process as claimed requires each therapy to be performed at specific parameters that differ from the apparatus claim(s). Furthermore, the process claims positively require the device to be applied at a certain pressure and used to “decrease infection clogs around the eye area to alleviate dryness and redness” while the apparatus may be used for materially different purposes on other parts of the body (i.e., providing warming and vibration massage to relax muscles or provide light therapy to treat acne on the face).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The two inventions have a search and/or examination burden because of the separate classification(s) thereof, and the different fields of search that would be required. For example, although the apparatus claims could be used to treat the eye area, it is merely an intended use and the structures of providing light therapy, heat therapy, vibration therapy, and microcurrent therapy could be found in their respective classification areas (i.e., A61N 1/328, A61F 7/00, A61H 2201/10). The process claims require specific searching in eye treatment classification areas such as A61N 1/36046 and A61F 9/00718. Furthermore, the two inventions require different fields of search such as specific text searches. For example, claims 13-16 require steps of applying a “minimum pressure” of amount 0.1 PSI to 10 PSI and a “peak acceleration” between 0.1g and about 0.9g, while claims 1-11 are silent as to applying a minimum pressure value or peak acceleration. Claims 13-16 also require applying a cream to the skin and increasing its absorption, while the remaining claims are silent as to applying cream.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Philip Levy on October 7, 2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-12 and 17-20 Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Here, the Examiner suggests including that “which is new to the art” such as its organization and operation, to provide 50 to 150 words describing the invention.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1, line 3 recites a “bottom mount” which lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim 2, line 3 recites the “Solawave device” which lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim 3, line 3 and line 6 recite “Solawave device” which lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 4-6, 8, 11-12, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13 recites “to promotes” and Examiner suggests --to promote--.
Claim 1, line 16 recites “300 uA” and Examiner suggests --300 µA-- to use the consistent symbol with line 18.
Claim 1, line 19 recites “wherein light therapy system” which has omitted the word --the--. Examiner suggests --wherein the light therapy system-- to clarify the antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 20 recites “synergistically employing” and Examiner suggests --synergistically employ--.
Claim 2, line 5 recites “therapy system a galvanic electric current” which has omitted the word --applies--. Examiner suggests --therapy system applies a galvanic current--.
Claim 3, line 2 recites “inside of front cover” which has omitted the word --a-- or --the-- before “front cover.”
Claim 4, line 6 recites “triangular seat the” which has omitted the word --on--. Examiner suggests --triangular seat on the--.
Claim 5, line 1 recites “includes generally” which has omitted the word --a--. Examiner suggests --includes a generally--.
Claim 6, line 4 recites reference character “232” which has not been enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 8, line 1 recites “The handle portion” and Examiner suggests including the word --wherein-- and using lowercase lettering: --wherein the handle portion--.
Claim 8, line 3 recites “The handle portion” and Examiner suggests using lowercase lettering --the handle portion--.
Claim 11, line 1 recites “300 uA” and Examiner suggests --300 µA-- to use the consistent symbol with line 3.
Claim 12, line 2 recites reference character “340” which has not been enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 20, line 6 recites “triangular seat the” which has omitted the word --on--. Examiner suggests --triangular seat on the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 and 20 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 1, lines 5-6 recite “a head motor” and line 14 recites “a motor to vibrate the head portion” and it is unclear if this is referring to two separate motors, or a single motor. Based upon a review of the disclosure, it appears this should be referring to a single, vibratory motor.
Claim 1, lines 16-17 recite “the direct current” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 3 recites “the Solawave device” which lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, the term “Solawave” is an unknown word. Thus, the meaning of “Solawave” is indefinite. As best understood, this appears to be a name for the device, and if that is the case, Examiner suggests --the electronic skin rejuvenating device--.
Claim 3, line 2 recites “front cover of the head portion” and it is unclear if this is a distinct “cover” from the “clear cover” and “head cover” of the head portion (recited in claim 1).
Claim 3, line 2 recites “the other pole” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 3 and line 6 recite “the Solawave device” and the term “Solawave” is an unknown word. Thus, the meaning of “the Solawave device” is indefinite.
Claim 3, line 4 recites “the body of the handle portion” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4, lines 3-4 recite “the at least two holes” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4, line 4 recites “the exterior flanges” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20, lines 3-4 recite “the at least two holes” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20, line 4 recites “the exterior flanges” which lacks antecedent basis.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11, lines 1-4 recite “wherein the micro-current system produce a 300 uA of AC current at 10 Hz; the direct current is pulsed at a frequency between about 0.1 and about 680 Hz with a current range between about 300-500 uA for skin toning and softening fine lines and facial microlifting” which has already been recited verbatim in claim 1 (see lines 16-18). Thus, claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1, line 10 recites “to penetrate the skin at least 0.1 mm” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --adapted to penetrate the skin at least 0.1 mm--.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “to penetrate the skin at least 0.1mm” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --adapted to penetrate the skin at least 0.1mm--.
Claim 1, lines 12-13 recite “to warm the skin between about 100 and 101 degrees Fahrenheit” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --adapted to warm the skin between about 100 and 101 degrees Fahrenheit--.
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recite “motor to vibrate the head portion against the skin” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --motor adapted to vibrate the head portion against the skin--.
Claim 1, the last two lines recite “synergistically employing heat, light, vibration and micro-current electrical neuromuscular stimulation of the skin to treat eye and facial skin problems” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --are configured to synergistically employ heat, light, vibration and micro-current electrical neuromuscular simulation of the skin to treat eye and facial skin problems--.
Claim 2, lines 4-6 recite “and the microcurrent therapy system [applies] a galvanic electric current that consist of electrodes to stimulate the local muscles in the skin” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --and whereby the microcurrent therapy system applies a galvanic electric current that consists of electrodes adapted to stimulate the local muscles in the skin--.
Claim 3, line 5 recites “the micro current flows through the users’ hand and body” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --whereby the micro current flows through the users’ hand and body--.
Claim 17, line 12 recites “to penetrate the skin at least 1.0mm” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --adapted to penetrate the skin at least 1.0mm--.
Claim 17, line 13 recites “to penetrate the skin” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --adapted to penetrate the skin --.
Claim 17, lines 14-15 recite “to warm the skin between about 93 and about 110 degrees Fahrenheit” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --adapted to warm the skin between about 93 and about 110 degrees Fahrenheit--.
Claim 17, lines 16-17 recite “motor to vibrate the head portion against the skin” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --motor adapted to vibrate the head portion against the skin--.
Claim 17, the last two lines recite “employ heat, light, vibration and micro-current electrical neuromuscular stimulation of the skin to treat eye and facial skin conditions” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --are configured to employ heat, light, vibration and micro-current electrical neuromuscular simulation of the skin to treat eye and facial skin conditions--.
Claim 18, line 5 recites “microcurrent therapy system stimulates the local muscles in the skin” which is directed to a human. Examiner suggests --microcurrent therapy system is configured to stimulate the local muscles in the skin--.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (2020/0253811) in view of Kennedy et al. (2014/0128780), and Ella et al. (2007/0027411).
Regarding claim 1, Alexander discloses an electronic skin rejuvenating apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 5A) to treat skin conditions (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
a handle portion (handle 1, Fig. 1A) and a head portion (head 11, Fig. 1A);
the handle portion (1) comprises a battery (battery 37, Fig. 2; see para. [0023]), a bottom mount (rightmost shell 24, Fig. 2), a handle circuit board (printed circuit board 28, Fig. 2), a top mount (leftmost shell 24, Fig. 2), and a back ring (end cap 41 has a ring-shaped opening, see Fig. 2);
the head portion (11) comprises a head cover (part 17A, Fig. 2), a head motor (vibration motor 16, Fig. 2; see para. [0025]), a head mount (part 17B, Fig. 2);
the head comprising a light therapy system (phototherapy appliance 52, Fig. 5A; such as blue light therapy and/or red light therapy, see para. [0038]), a warming system (heat conductor 18, heating pad 32, Fig. 2; see para. [0024]), a vibrating massage system (vibrational motor 16, Fig. 2, Fig. 4B; see para. [0026]), and a microcurrent therapy system (microcurrent electrodes 48, Fig. 4B), wherein the light therapy system (52) comprises a plurality of light emitting sources (plurality of LED sources 53, 54, Fig. 5A) that emit a light therapy, including a red light between about 650 nm to about 670 nm to penetrate the skin at least 0.1mm (red light therapy is used, see para. [0038] “Red light therapy, on the other hand, can penetrate deeper into the skin than the blue light due to it having a longer light wavelength.” Red light is known to penetrate skin about 1 to 10 mm) and blue light between about 410nm to about 430nm to penetrate the skin at least 0.1mm (see Para. [0038], blue light sources can be used, which would use substantially the same wavelength. Blue light is known to penetrate skin about 2-3 mm);
the warming system includes a heating element (heat conductor 18, heat pad 32, Fig. 2) to warm the skin between about 100 and about 101 degrees Fahrenheit to promotes local blood circulation or vasodilation (see para. [0029] “With respect to heating, temperatures can be used that will not burn the skin, e.g., 36° C to 44° C or from 38° C to 42° C can be suitable”);
the vibrating massage system comprises a motor (16, Fig. 2) to vibrate the head portion (11) against the skin, the motor vibrates at a rate of about 14000 microvibrations per minute (including 12,000 vibrational oscillations per minute, see the last sentence of [0027] and the first sentence of [0028]);
the microcurrent therapy system produces a 300 uA of AC current (see Para. [0036], Microcurrent therapy, or ionic infusion therapy, can be used to delivery microcurrent to the skin of a user, using electrical current that can be varied from about 5 μA up to about 1,000 μA (1 mA) to increase adenosine triphosphate); with a current range between about 300-500µA for skin toning and softening fine lines and facial microlifting (about 10 μA - 500 μA, “Visible results can include wrinkle reduction … reduced skin sagging … skin firmness” see para. [0036]); and
wherein light therapy system (52), the warming system (18, 32), and the vibrating massage system (16), and the microcurrent therapy system (48) synergistically employing heat, light, vibration and micro-current electrical neuromuscular stimulation of the skin to treat eye and facial skin problems (This is a recitation of intended use. Furthermore, see para. [0010] The present disclosure is drawn to skin care devices, as well as related systems and methods. In one example, a skin care device can include a skin-rejuvenation head including a first external region and a second external region thereon).
Alexander is silent regarding wherein the head portion is rotatable about an axis; the head portion comprising a clear cover, a head circuit board, a rotatable coupler, the head circuit board comprising the light therapy system, the warming system, the vibrating massage system, and the microcurrent system; the micro current being at 10 Hz, the direct current is pulsed at a frequency between about 0.1 and about 680 Hz.
Kennedy teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 1) with a head portion (treatment head 12, Fig. 1, Fig. 8) comprising a clear cover (faceplate 36, Fig. 8; “formed of a transparent epoxy material … adapted for transferring light, heat and vibration energy to the skin” see lines 8-12 of [0022]) that is removably connected to the head portion to allow the user to interchangeably fit a variety of faceplates according to a desired treatment (see the last seven lines of [0022]), a head circuit board (first PCB 40, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, separate from other PCB’s 54, 58, Fig. 4, which provide separate functions such as being connected to the control switch 56, see [0029]) comprising a light therapy system (plurality of LED light sources 28, Fig. 8), a warming system (heaters 44, Fig. 8; “heater 44 may be disposed in potting 30 to provide a greater amount of heat or a more consistent temperature than might be achieved by heat transfer from light sources 28 alone” see para. [0024]), and a vibrating massage system (vibrator 42, Fig. 8; “Vibrator 42 is secured to first PCB 40” see [0027]). Thus, the treatment head is adapted to synergistically apply light therapy, warming therapy, and vibration massage therapy.
Therefore, 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 micro-current therapy head portion of Alexander to additionally include a detachable clear cover, a head circuit board comprising the light therapy system, the warming system, and the vibrating massage system as taught by Kennedy to provide an expected result that the plurality of therapies can synergistically be applied to the skin, with a relatively compact configuration having the therapeutic modalities integrated on the head circuit board, and the clear cover allowing the patient to interchangeably fit a variety of faceplates according to a desired treatment. In the modified device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the micro-current module of Alexander additionally coupled to the head circuit board of Kennedy so each modality is conveniently controlled in the head portion, to control the synergistic therapies.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy device is still silent regarding wherein the head portion is rotatable about an axis; the head portion comprising a rotatable coupler; the micro current being at 10 Hz, the direct current is pulsed at a frequency between about 0.1 and about 680 Hz.
Ella teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 1A, 6A; “face-and-body treatment … for beauty treatment” see Abstract) wherein the head portion (spout 12, Fig. 1A, 6A) comprises a rotatable coupler (connector 30, Fig. 1A, 6A; connector 30 has “a swivel motion, for example of 90 or 120 degrees” see the second sentence of [00260]), with the head portion being rotatable about an axis (the swivel connector 30 allows the head portion 12 to be rotated about an axis, 90 or 120 degrees). Ella additionally provides electrical stimulation (via electrostimulation electrodes 27, Fig. 6A) which may be AC and DC pulses between 0.1 And 20 Hz (see para. [0329]).
Therefore, 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 head portion to include a rotatable coupler to be rotatable about an axis, and to provide AC and DC pulsated electrical stimulation between 0.1 and 20 Hz as taught by Ella because this provides an expected result that the rotatable head allows the head to be configured to a desired orientation for the user, and the electrical stimulation current is expected to be suitable for face and body treatment.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the microcurrent therapy to produce the AC current at 10 Hz, and direct current pulsed between about 0.1 and about 680 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Alexander discloses applying micro-current from about 10 μA - 500 μA to reduce wrinkles, reduce skin sagging, and improve skin firmness, while Ella discloses pulsing the AC and DC currents from 0.1 Hz to 20 Hz), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, Alexander discloses an electronic skin rejuvenating apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 5A) to treat skin conditions (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
a handle portion (handle 1, Fig. 1A) and a head portion (head 11, Fig. 1A), wherein the head portion is operably coupled with the handle portion (see Fig. 1A);
the handle portion (1) comprises a power source (battery 37, Fig. 2; see para. [0023]), a bottom housing (rightmost shell 24, Fig. 2), a handle circuit board (printed circuit board 28, Fig. 2), a top mount (leftmost shell 24, Fig. 2), and a back ring (end cap 41 has a ring-shaped opening, see Fig. 2);
the head portion (11) comprises a head cover (part 17A, Fig. 2), a vibration motor (vibration motor 16, Fig. 2; see para. [0025]), a head housing (part 17B, Fig. 2), wherein the power source (37) is operably coupled with the handle circuit board (the battery 37 powers all electrical components of the device);
the head comprises a light therapy system (phototherapy appliance 52, Fig. 5A; such as blue light therapy and/or red light therapy, see para. [0038]), a warming system (heat conductor 18, heating pad 32, Fig. 2; see para. [0024]), a vibrating massage system (vibrational motor 16, Fig. 2, Fig. 4B; see para. [0026]), and a microcurrent therapy system (microcurrent electrodes 48, Fig. 4B), wherein the light therapy system (52) comprises a plurality of light emitting sources (plurality of LED sources 53, 54, Fig. 5A) that emit a therapeutic light, including a red light between about 630 nm to about 670 nm to penetrate the skin at least 0.1mm (red light therapy is used, which is substantially the same wavelength, see para. [0038] “Red light therapy, on the other hand, can penetrate deeper into the skin than the blue light due to it having a longer light wavelength.” Red light is known to penetrate skin about 1 to 10 mm) or blue light between about 410nm to about 465nm to penetrate the skin (see Para. [0038], blue light sources can be used, which would use substantially the same wavelength);
the warming system includes a heating element (heat conductor 18, heat pad 32, Fig. 2) to warm the skin between about 93 and about 110 degrees Fahrenheit to promote local blood circulation or vasodilation (see para. [0029] “With respect to heating, temperatures can be used that will not burn the skin, e.g., 36° C to 44° C or from 38° C to 42° C can be suitable”);
the vibrating massage system comprises the vibration motor (16, Fig. 2) to vibrate the head portion (11) against the skin, the motor vibrates at a rate of between about 300 and about 30000 microvibrations per minute (such as 7,000 to 12,000 vibrational oscillations per minute, see the last sentence of [0027] and the first sentence of [0028]);
the microcurrent therapy system produces at least a 300 µA of AC current (see Para. [0036], Microcurrent therapy, or ionic infusion therapy, can be used to delivery microcurrent to the skin of a user, using electrical current that can be varied from about 5 μA up to about 1,000 μA (1 mA) to increase adenosine triphosphate); with a current range between about 100-600µA for skin toning, softening fine lines and facial microlifting (about 10 μA - 500 μA, “Visible results can include wrinkle reduction … reduced skin sagging … skin firmness” see para. [0036]);
wherein the light therapy system (52), the warming system (18, 32), and the vibrating massage system (16), and the microcurrent therapy system (48) employ heat, light, vibration and micro-current electrical neuromuscular stimulation of the skin to treat eye and facial skin conditions (This is a recitation of intended use. Furthermore, see para. [0010] The present disclosure is drawn to skin care devices, as well as related systems and methods. In one example, a skin care device can include a skin-rejuvenation head including a first external region and a second external region thereon).
Alexander is silent regarding the head portion comprising a cover, a head circuit board; the power source operably coupled with the head circuit board; the head circuit board comprising the light therapy system, the warming system, the vibrating massage system, and the microcurrent system; the micro current being at 10 Hz, the direct current is pulsed at a frequency between about 0.1 and about 680 Hz.
Kennedy teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 1) with a head portion (treatment head 12, Fig. 1, Fig. 8) comprising a cover (faceplate 36, Fig. 8; “formed of a transparent epoxy material … adapted for transferring light, heat and vibration energy to the skin” see lines 8-12 of [0022]) that is removably connected to the head portion to allow the user to interchangeably fit a variety of faceplates according to a desired treatment (see the last seven lines of [0022]), a head circuit board (first PCB 40, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, separate from other PCB’s 54, 58, Fig. 4, which provide separate functions such as being connected to the control switch 56, see [0029]) comprising a light therapy system (plurality of LED light sources 28, Fig. 8), a warming system (heaters 44, Fig. 8; “heater 44 may be disposed in potting 30 to provide a greater amount of heat or a more consistent temperature than might be achieved by heat transfer from light sources 28 alone” see para. [0024]), and a vibrating massage system (vibrator 42, Fig. 8; “Vibrator 42 is secured to first PCB 40” see [0027]). Additionally, Kennedy’s power source (power supply 60, Fig. 4) is operably coupled with the head circuit board (see the second sentence of [0035], the power supply provides power to certain components, and the head circuit board 40 would require power in order to operate the functional components of the vibrator, heater, and LED’s). Thus, the treatment head is adapted to synergistically apply light therapy, warming therapy, and vibration massage therapy.
Therefore, 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 micro-current therapy head portion of Alexander to additionally include a detachable cover, a head circuit board comprising the light therapy system, the warming system, and the vibrating massage system, with the power source operably coupled with the head circuit board as taught by Kennedy to provide an expected result that the plurality of therapies can synergistically be applied to the skin, with a relatively compact configuration having the therapeutic modalities integrated on the head circuit board, and the detachable cover allowing the patient to interchangeably fit a variety of faceplates according to a desired treatment. In the modified device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the micro-current module of Alexander additionally coupled to the head circuit board of Kennedy so each modality is conveniently controlled in the head portion, to control the synergistic therapies.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy device is still silent regarding the micro current being at 10 Hz, the direct current is pulsed at a frequency between about 0.1 and about 680 Hz.
Ella teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 1A, 6A; “face-and-body treatment … for beauty treatment” see Abstract) wherein the head portion (spout 12, Fig. 1A, 6A) provides electrical stimulation (via electrostimulation electrodes 27, Fig. 6A) which may be AC and DC pulses between 0.1 And 20 Hz (see para. [0329]).
Therefore, 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 head portion of Alexander/Kennedy to provide AC and DC pulsated electrical stimulation between 0.1 and 20 Hz as taught by Ella because this provides an expected result that the electrical stimulation current is expected to be suitable for face and body treatment.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the microcurrent therapy to produce the AC current at 10 Hz, and direct current pulsed between about 0.1 and about 680 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Alexander discloses applying micro-current from about 10 μA - 500 μA to reduce wrinkles, reduce skin sagging, and improve skin firmness, while Ella discloses pulsing the AC and DC currents from 0.1 Hz to 20 Hz), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (2020/0253811) in view of Kennedy et al. (2014/0128780), and Ella et al. (2007/0027411) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Anderson (2009/0093864) and Springer Jr. (6,181,974).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella device discloses wherein the plurality of light emitting sources are light-emitting diodes (LED sources 53, 54, Fig. 5A of Alexander); and the microcurrent therapy system consists of electrodes (microcurrent electrodes 48, Fig. 4B of Alexander) to stimulate the skin (see para. [0036] of Alexander). The modified device is silent regarding the handle portion does not include any buttons to operate; the head portion comprises a touch activation sensor that turns the Solawave device on when the touch activation sensor uses an impedance activation scheme of about 13 megohms or less; and the microcurrent therapy system [applies] a galvanic electric current to stimulate the local muscles in the skin.
Anderson teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 2) with the head portion comprising a touch activation sensor (electrodes 306, Fig. 3A “configured to sense tissue contact before activation” see the first sentence of [0036]) that uses an impedance activation scheme to turn on the apparatus (“determine the proper impedance value upon tissue contact. Once a low enough impedance value is detected, either by the hand held device 200 or the controller 102, the electrode would be supplied with full RF power to effectuate treatment” see para. [0036]).
Therefore, 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 Alexander/Kennedy/Ella device to include a touch activation sensor that turns the device on when using an impedance activation scheme as taught by Anderson so the device can be automatically turned on to provide therapy without needing to press a button.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson device does not specifically state the value of the impedance activation scheme to be about 13 megohms or less. However, 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 activation to be at about 13 megohms or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Anderson discloses activating the device “once a low enough impedance value is detected”), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson device is still silent regarding the handle portion having no buttons to operate. However, it is noted that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, Kennedy additionally teaches that the control button can be located on the head portion (control switch 56 is disposed on the head portion 12, see Fig. 1). This is a mere design consideration, and provides a predictable alternative of allowing the device to be controlled with the switch on the head portion.
Therefore, 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 location of the control button(s) of Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson to be on the head portion because this is a predictable alternative that would be expected to still be a suitable location for a control switch, and since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson device does not specifically state the microcurrent therapy system [applies] a galvanic electric current to stimulate the local muscles in the skin.
Springer teaches a related facial electrode assembly (Fig. 1) that establishes galvanic current (“At an individual electrode… annular screw head 80 conducts the galvanic current to the face of the patient” see col. 5, lines 3-7) to tone facial tissue by electrically stimulating (local) muscles whereby the muscle contracts in the hope that stronger muscles beneath the skin will reduce sagging of the skin (see col. 1, lines 17-26).
Therefore, 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 electrode assembly of Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson to apply galvanic current to stimulate the muscles of the skin as taught by Springer because this is expected to help tone facial tissue by contracting the muscles and reducing sagging of the skin.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella device discloses wherein the plurality of light emitting sources are light-emitting diodes (LED sources 53, 54, Fig. 5A of Alexander); the handle portion (1, Fig. 1A of Alexander) includes a button to operate (power button 35, Fig. 1A); and the microcurrent therapy system consists of electrodes (microcurrent electrodes 48, Fig. 4B of Alexander) to stimulate the skin (see para. [0036] of Alexander). The modified device is silent regarding the head portion comprises a touch activation sensor that turns the Electronic skin rejuvenating apparatus on when the touch activation sensor uses an impedance activation scheme of about 13 megohms or less; and the microcurrent therapy system stimulates the local muscles in the skin.
Anderson teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 2) with the head portion comprising a touch activation sensor (electrodes 306, Fig. 3A “configured to sense tissue contact before activation” see the first sentence of [0036]) that uses an impedance activation scheme to turn on the apparatus (“determine the proper impedance value upon tissue contact. Once a low enough impedance value is detected, either by the hand held device 200 or the controller 102, the electrode would be supplied with full RF power to effectuate treatment” see para. [0036]).
Therefore, 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 Alexander/Kennedy/Ella device to include a touch activation sensor that turns the device on when using an impedance activation scheme as taught by Anderson so the device can be automatically turned on to provide therapy without needing to press a button.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson device does not specifically state the value of the impedance activation scheme to be about 13 megohms or less. However, 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 activation to be at about 13 megohms or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Anderson discloses activating the device “once a low enough impedance value is detected”), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson device does not specifically state the microcurrent therapy system stimulates the local muscles in the skin.
Springer teaches a related facial electrode assembly (Fig. 1) that establishes galvanic current (“At an individual electrode… annular screw head 80 conducts the galvanic current to the face of the patient” see col. 5, lines 3-7) to tone facial tissue by electrically stimulating (local) muscles whereby the muscle contracts in the hope that stronger muscles beneath the skin will reduce sagging of the skin (see col. 1, lines 17-26).
Therefore, 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 electrode assembly of Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson to apply galvanic current to stimulate the local muscles of the skin as taught by Springer because this is expected to help tone facial tissue by contracting the muscles and reducing sagging of the skin.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (2020/0253811) in view of Kennedy et al. (2014/0128780), Ella et al. (2007/0027411), Anderson (2009/0093864), and Springer Jr. (6,181,974) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (2022/0134094) and Jeong (2020/0093945).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson/Springer device is silent regarding wherein the head portion includes a spring loaded pogo pin that presses on the inside of front cover of the head portion to transfer the other pole of a microcurrent generator to the head portion of the Solawave device; wherein the micro current is delivered to the head portion of the device using the body of the handle portion as the return connection; the micro current flows through the users’ hand and body and the circuit is completed at the interface of the Solawave device’s head portion and the skin it is applied to.
Kim teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the head portion includes a spring loaded pogo pin (“spring-loaded pin (Pogo-Pin) may be used to connect between the circular electrode pattern and the corresponding circular electrode. One end of the Pogo-Pin may be connected and affixed to the circular electrode pattern, and the other end … of the Pogo-Pin may electrically contact the circular electrode” see para. [0086]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the spring-loaded Pogo-Pin can be used to establish electrical contact for the electrode(s).
Therefore, 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 head portion of Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson/Springer to include a spring loaded pogo pin to press on an inside of the front cover of the head portion to transfer the other pole of the microcurrent generator to the head of the device as generally taught by Kim because this allows the electrical stimulation to be established upon pressing contact with the user’s skin.
The modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson/Springer/Kim device is still silent regarding the micro current is delivered to the head portion of the device using the body of the handle portion as the return connection; the micro current flows through the users’ hand and body and the circuit is completed at the interface of the Solawave device’s head portion and the skin it is applied to.
Jeong teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein micro current is delivered to the head portion (contact probe 211, Fig. 3) of the device using the body of the handle portion (case 223, Fig. 3) as the return connection (via electrode plate 226, Fig. 3) so the micro-current flows through the user’s hand and body and the circuit is completed at the interface of the head portion and the skin it is applied to (“[0079] The electrode plate 226 may be provided to be exposed to one surface of the case 223, so that the electrode plate 226 may come into contact with the user's hand when the user grips the case 223. As the electrode plate 226 comes into contact with the user's hand and the contact probe 211 comes into contact with the skin of the user, a closed circuit connecting the battery 237, the contact probe 211, the user's main body, the electrode plate 226, and the battery 237 may be configured.” See para. [0079]).
Therefore, 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 body of the handle portion of Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson/Springer/Kim to have the return connection included in the handle so micro-current flows through the user’s hand and body and the circuit is completed at the interface of the head portion and the skin it is applied to as taught by Jeong because this provides an expected result of only providing the completed circuit when the user is intended to apply the microcurrent, grasping the handle.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (2020/0253811) in view of Kennedy et al. (2014/0128780), Ella et al. (2007/0027411), Anderson (2009/0093864), and Springer Jr. (6,181,974) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (2022/0134094).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson/Springer device is silent regarding wherein the head portion includes a spring loaded pogo pin that presses on the inside of the head cover of the head portion to transfer a pole of a microcurrent generator to the head portion.
Kim teaches a related electronic skin treatment device (Fig. 1) wherein the head portion includes a spring loaded pogo pin (“spring-loaded pin (Pogo-Pin) may be used to connect between the circular electrode pattern and the corresponding circular electrode. One end of the Pogo-Pin may be connected and affixed to the circular electrode pattern, and the other end … of the Pogo-Pin may electrically contact the circular electrode” see para. [0086]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the spring-loaded Pogo-Pin can be used to establish electrical contact for the electrode(s).
Therefore, 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 head portion of Alexander/Kennedy/Ella/Anderson/Springer to include a spring loaded pogo pin to press on an inside of the head cover of the head portion to transfer a pole of the microcurrent generator to the head portion as generally taught by Kim because this allows the electrical stimulation to be established upon pressing contact with the user’s skin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,642,520.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims.
For example, instant claim 1 recites the same invention as Patented Claim 1, except instant claim 1 omits wherein the plurality of light emitting sources are light-emitting diodes; the handle portion does not include any buttons to operate; the head portion comprises a touch activation sensor that turns the Electronic skin rejuvenating apparatus on when the touch activation sensor uses an impedance scheme of about 13 megohms or less; and the microcurrent therapy system stimulates the local muscles in the skin and; the head housing comprises a mounted seat for the head circuit board to be secured there within; the head housing comprises at least two seated pins to secure the head circuit board, whereby the seated pins coaxially couple through the at least two holes on the exterior flanges of the head circuit board; the head housing comprises a central lumen portion, whereby the head housing is rotatable about a central axis of the central lumen portion; the central lumen portion includes a triangular seat on the exterior surface of the head housing; wherein the triangular seat allows the head housing to rotate to a fixed position, such that the head housing rotates to a right angle with respect to the handle portion; and the head housing comprises at least four seated columns by which the head housing is secured to the head cover. Furthermore, any additional limitations recited in instant claim 1 are rendered obvious in light of the prior art applied above with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection(s), and would merely provide expected results.
Similarly, instant claim 17 recites the same invention as Patented claim 11, except instant claim 17 omits wherein the plurality of light emitting sources are light-emitting diodes; the handle portion includes a button to operate; the head portion comprises a touch activation sensor that turns the Electronic skin rejuvenating apparatus on when the touch activation sensor uses an impedance scheme of about 13 megohms or less; and the microcurrent therapy system stimulates the local muscles in the skin; wherein the head portion includes a spring-loaded element that presses on the inside of the head cover of the head portion to transfer a pole of a microcurrent generator to the head portion; the head housing comprises a mounted seat for the head circuit board to be secured there within; the head housing comprises at least two seated pins to secure the head circuit board, whereby the seated pins coaxially couple through the at least two holes on the exterior flanges of the head circuit board; the head housing comprises a central lumen portion, whereby the head housing is rotatable about a central axis of the central lumen portion; the central lumen portion includes a triangular seat on the exterior surface of the head housing; wherein the triangular seat allows the head housing to rotate to a fixed position, such that the head housing rotates to a right angle with respect to the handle portion; and the head housing comprises at least four seated columns by which the head housing is secured to the head cover. Furthermore, any additional limitations recited in instant claim 17 are rendered obvious in light of the prior art applied above with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection(s), and would merely provide expected results.
The remaining claims are disclosed and/or rendered obvious by Patented Claims 2-10 and 12-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (2022/0369792) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with LEDs, a vibration generating part, a galvanic part, and a heating part. Adam et al. (2007/0217199) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with a plurality of LEDs and a translucent window at the top end of the housing. Beerwerth et al. (2020/0316800) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with LEDs mounted on a printed circuit board, and transparent cover(s) on top of the LEDs. Gorham (2010/0292746) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy, vibrating therapy, heat therapy, and microcurrent. Kondo et al. (2016/0121108) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy, vibrating therapy, and microcurrent. Altshuler et al. (2007/0038206) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy and a head portion that is pivotable in various directions about a longitudinal axis. Nicholes (2013/0046212) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy and vibration therapy. Hyun et al. (2018/0126160) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with electrical stimulation and vibration. Sedic (2017/0087379) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy, vibration therapy, and a touch activation sensor. Yeshurun et al. (2009/0048557) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy and vibration therapy. Yoo et al. (2020/0086137) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with a handle portion, head portion, top mount, bottom mount. Oh et al. (2021/0145686) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy, vibrating therapy, microcurrent therapy, and warming therapy. Widgerow (2019/0183562) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with microcurrent therapy, and thermal therapy. Vetanze (7,503,927) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy, vibrating therapy, and microcurrent therapy. Hwang (6,443,915) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with vibration therapy and galvanic ion microcurrent therapy. Shapiro et al. (6,187,029) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy and warming therapy. Yuval (10,688,290) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy for anti-wrinkle. Mantle et al. (8,983,596) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy and microcurrent therapy. Ma et al. (CN 110575617 A) discloses a related electronic skin treatment device with light therapy, vibrating therapy, warming therapy, and microcurrent therapy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785