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 .
Detailed Action
The amendment filed on 10/10/2025 has been entered.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) On page 20, lines 23-25 do not agree with Fig.5. As shown in the figure, the aperture 430 tapers “toward” not “away from” the first surface 41.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claims 1 and 17, the term “preferably” is indefinite.
(2) Regarding claim1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
(3) at line 11 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 4, “the total cutting edge length” has no clear antecedent basis. It is suggested “the total cutting length”, at line 8 of the claim 1, be changed to --a total cutting edge length--. Also, “the total cutting length” (at line 2 of claim 7) should be changed to --the total cutting edge length--.
(4) In claim 3, line 1, “the aperture area” has no clear antecedent basis. It is suggested “the aperture area … of the apertures” (at lines 1-2 of the claim) be changed to --an aperture area … of each of the apertures--. Note this is different from “a total aperture area” cited at line 8 of clam 1.
(5) In claim 8, “a transparency” is undefined.
(6) In claim 17, “the second material” has no antecedent basis when the option “or” (at line 13 of claim 1) applies. It is suggested after “wherein” (at line 1 of claim 17), --when the substrate comprises the first material and the second material,-- be added.
(7) In claim 19, lines 1-2, “any of claim 1” does not make sense.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1, 3-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarchik et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,293,768, hereinafter “Lazarchik”) in view of Hamada et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,124,511, hereinafter “Hamada”).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Lazarchik discloses a skin treatment sheet (16) comprising:
a substrate (e.g., a metal foil strip, see column 3, line 20) with a plurality of apertures (18), wherein the sheet (16) has a first surface (22) and an opposing second surface (24), the apertures (18) have a first inner perimeter at the first surface (22) and a second inner perimeter at the opposing second surface (24), at least two (18) of the apertures (18) have a cutting edge (20) along at least a portion of the first inner perimeter, the sheet (16) has a total cutting length (L1) which is the total length of all portions of the first perimeter in each aperture (18) that comprise a cutting edge (20), the sheet (16) has a total aperture area (A1) on the first surface (22) and the ratio of the total aperture area (Al) and the total cutting edge length (L1) is from 0.08 to 2.0 mm (e.g., ratio = (π x r² x N) / (2 x π x r x N) = r/2 = 1.5 mm/2 = 0.7 mm, where r = radius = ½ diameter = 1.5 mm, N = number of the apertures, see column 3, lines 23-26) substantially as claimed except Lazarchik fails to mention the substrate comprising two materials, namely a first material and a second material adjacent to the first material.
Hamada shows a skin treatment substate comprising a first material of silicon and a second material of oxide layers (30, see Figs.7A-7B) adjacent to the first material.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Lazarchik by having the substrate comprising two specific materials as taught by Hamada for the advantage of improving resistance to breakage and increasing strength.
Regarding claim 3, Lazarchik shows an aperture area (2 x π x r = 2 x 3.14 x 1.5 mm = 9.42 mm, where r = radius = 1.5 mm) of each of the apertures (18) ranges from 0.2 mm² to 25 mm².
Regarding claim 4, Lazarchik’s ratio of the total aperture area and the total cutting edge length is 0.7 mm (see claim 1 above) which is in the claimed range of from 0.2 to 1.0 mm.
Regarding claim 5, Lazarchik’s total treatment sheet area (A = L x W = 4.3 cm x 1.2 cm = 43 mm x 12 mm = 516 mm², see column 3, lines 20-23) is in the range from 100 to 800 mm².
Regarding claim 6, Larzrchik’s total aperture area (π x r² x N= 3.14 x 1.5 mm x 1.5 mm x 28 = 198.82 mm², where r = radius = ½ diameter = 1.5 mm, N = number of the apertures, see column 3, lines 23-26) is in the range from 10 to 400 mm².
Regarding claim 7, Lazarchik’s total cutting length (2 x π x r x N = (2 x 3.14 x 1.5 mm) x 28 = 267.76 mm, where r = radius = ½ diameter = 1.5 mm, N = number of the apertures, see column 3, lines 23-26) is in the claimed range of from 20 to 600 mm.
Regarding claim 8, a transparency of Lazarchik’s skin treatment sheet (16) is in the claimed range from 5 to 60 %. The transparency is defined as the ratio of the total aperture area and the total treatment sheet area. Note the total aperture area is 198.82 mm² (see claim 6 above), and the total treatment sheet area is 516 mm² (see claim 5 above). Thus, the ratio is 198.82 mm²/ 516 mm² = 38.53 % which is in the claimed range of from 5 to 60 %.
Regarding claim 9, Lazarchik’s skin treatment sheet (16) has a cross-sectional substrate area (e.g., a vertical cross-section taken through skin treatment sheet 16 along the line of a shortest distance between closest adjacent apertures characterizes an area that is bounded by the line, a corresponding minimum aperture distance on the second surface of the skin treatment sheet 16 and two bevels that connect the inner perimeter on the first surface to the inner perimeter on the second surface) in the range from 0.01 to 1 mm².
Regarding claim 10, Lazarchik’s skin treatment sheet (16) has an outer perimeter with a rim width (e.g., the shortest distance can be measured from the outer perimeter to the inner perimeter of any of the apertures adjacent to the outer perimeter on the first surface), wherein the rim width is in the claimed range from 0.1 to 5.0 mm (note the diameter of Lazarchik’s aperture 18 is 3 mm, therefore, Lazarchik’s rim width is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 5.0 mm, referring to Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, Lazarchik shows the first inner perimeter of the apertures (18) at the first surface (22) being smaller than the second inner perimeter of the apertures (18) at the second surface (24, see Fig.3).
Regarding claim 12, Lazarchik’s skin treatment sheet (16) has a thickness (0.1 mm = 100 µm, see column 3, lines 20-21) in the claimed range of 20 to 1000 µm.
Regarding claim 13, the number of Lazarchik’s apertures (18) is 28 (see column 3, lines 23-24) which is in the claimed range of 5 to 200.
Regarding claim 14, Larzrchik is silent about the range for a tip radius (20) of the cutting edge (20) being in the range of 1 to 200 nm. Hamada shows a cutting edge (10) of a skin treatment sheet (1) having a tip radius (R, see Fig.1B) of smaller than 10 nm (see column 6, lines 25-27) which is in the claimed range of 1 to 200 nm. To further modify Lazarchik by having the tip radius (20) smaller than 10 nm for reducing cutting resistance as taught by Hamada would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Lazarchik’s apertures (18) are circular.
Regarding claim 19, Larzrchik shows a skin treatment device (10, see Fig.1) comprising at least one skin treatment sheet (16) as modified in claim 1.
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarchik et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,293,768, hereinafter “Lazarchik”) in view of Hamada et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,124,511) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0272460, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 2, Lazarchik’s skin treatment sheet (16) as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except it does not explicitly mention the closest adjacent apertures (18) having a shortest distance which is in the range of 0.1 to 3.5 mm.
Li shows a skin treatment sheet (see Fig.3) having apertures (12) each having a diameter of 3 mm or a radius of 1.5 mm (see paragraph [0016], lines 22-23). From Fig.3, the closest adjacent apertures (16) has a shortest distance not more than the radius 1.5 mm which is in the claimed range of 0.1 to 3.5 mm.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Lazarchk by having the apertures (18) so arranged so that the closest adjacent apertures (18) having a shortest distance which is in the range of 0.1 to 3.5 mm suitable for skin treatment as taught by Li.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0276826 shows a substrate comprising a first material (e.g., “germanium”, see paragraph [0034], line 5, pertinent to claim 1) and a second material (e.g., “mono-crystalline diamond”, see paragraph [0034], lines 13-14, pertinent to claim 17).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0066180 discloses a cutting blade comprising a blade substrate having a first material (see claim 6) and a second material (see claim 7) joined with the first material.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot in light of the above new ground(s) of rejection. Dependent claims 2-14 and 17-19 have not been argued individually and they stand or fail to independent claim 1.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights