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 § 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, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulholland (‘355) in view of the teaching Masse (10/993,765) and further in view of Altshuler et al (2009/0248004).
Regarding claim 1, Mulholland discloses a method for thermal destruction of fat tissue and skin tightening as addressed with respect to claim 5 above. Mulholland discloses the steps of inserting a distal portion of a cannula having multiple electrodes into adipose tissue and moving the cannula parallel to the skin surface while applying pulses of RF energy to tissue. See column 5, lines 44-46 for the discussion of multiple electrodes, column 4, lines 44-55 for discussion of parallel movement of the cannula, and columns 6 and 8 for discussion of the use of pulsed energy. Mulholland also provides a motion sensor to monitor probe movement, but fails to expressly disclose synchronizing probe movement with the pulsing of energy to avoid overlapping coagulation zones, and the use of a dielectric ring between the electrodes to insulate them from each other.
Regarding the dielectric ring, the examiner maintains that it is generally known to provide cannulas with multiple electrodes with a dielectric ring between the electrodes in order to insulate the electrodes from each other. To this point, Masse specifically disclose a cannula (106) having multiple electrodes (204, 208 – Figure 2B) on the cannula, and a dielectric spacer (206) located between the electrodes to insulate the electrodes from each other (as is generally known in the art). It is again noted that Mulholland teaches the use of multiple electrodes of opposing polarity on the cannula (col. 5, lines 44-46).
Since Mulholland discloses the use of multiple electrodes on the cannula body, it would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the electrodes with a ring made from a dielectric material between the electrodes to insulate the electrodes during use of the device.
Regarding the synchronized movement of the probe, Altshuler et al provide another method for skin treatments including destruction of adipose tissue to cause skin tightening (para. [0071], for example). Altshuler et al provide pulses of electromagnetic energy to thermally treat tissue, and specifically teach of synchronizing the pulse delivery with the movement of the probe to avoid overlapping of treatment areas (para. [0239], for example). To have provided the Mulholland device, which employs a motion sensor, with a means to synchronize pulse delivery with the sensed movement of the probe to avoid overlapping treatment areas 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 such a method step in a similar procedure.
Regarding claim 4, Mulholland discloses the use of a temperature sensor (see claim 11 above). Regarding claim 6, the examiner maintains that any practical speed for movement of the probe would be within the purview of the skilled artisan and would be an obvious consideration for a given procedure. It is noted that applicant fails to disclose any specific means for determining such a speed, and the speed is only mentioned in the claims and not in the description of the application. Regarding claim 12, Mulholland discloses a tip/treatment size that would inherently be capable of creating a coagulation zone of the claimed size (col. 7, lines 64-67, for example). Regarding claim 14, Mulholland disclose the step of skin tightening (Abstract, for example) as well as other procedures.
Regarding claim 16, see discussion of claim 1.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulholland (8,103,355) in view of the teaching of Masse (10,993,765).
Regarding claim 5, Mulholland provides a method for thermal fat destruction and tissue tightening (Abstract, for example) comprising the steps of inserting a distal portion of a cannula with one or more electrodes into adipose tissue (Figure 3 and col. 5, lines 44-46, for example) and moving the cannula parallel to the skin to treat tissue (col. 4, lines 44-55, for example). RF pulses are delivered to tissue (col. 6, lines 27-38) which may be in the millisecond range (col. 8, line 2, for example) which would necessarily be of a duration shorter than a time required for full displacement of the cannula tip, and the pulses are intended to coagulate tissue (col. 3, lines 27-33, for example). Mulholland expressly discloses the use of multiple electrodes on the probe, the electrodes having opposing polarities (col. 5, lines 44-46), but fail to expressly disclose a dielectric ring separating the electrodes.
The examiner maintains that it is generally known to provide cannulas with multiple electrodes with a dielectric ring between the electrodes in order to insulate the electrodes from each other. To this point, Masse specifically disclose a cannula (106) having multiple electrodes (204, 208 – Figure 2B) on the cannula, and a dielectric spacer (206) located between the electrodes to insulate the electrodes from each other (as is generally known in the art).
Since Mulholland discloses the use of multiple electrodes on the cannula body, it would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the electrodes with a ring made from a dielectric material to insulate the electrodes during use of the device.
Regarding claim 7, see column 8, line 2 as addressed above. Regarding claim 10, Mulholland teach the use of a movement sensor to monitor probe movement (col. 6, lines 22-26, for example). Regarding claim 11, Mulholland also disclose the use of temperature sensors (col. 8, lines 23-24). Regarding claim 13, Mulholland discloses a tip/treatment size that would inherently be capable of creating a coagulation zone of the claimed size (col. 7, lines 64-67, for example). Regarding claim 15, Mulholland disclose the step of skin tightening (Abstract, for example) as well as other procedures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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 PEFFLEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3794
/M.F.P/May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights