Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the “Claim Interpretation” and “35 U.S.C. § 101” sections, see page 6 through page 9, line 11, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The: A) interpretation of recitations of 1) intended use, 2) functional limitation, or 3) language directed to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed for claims 1-6 and B) 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102: 1) “West does not teach or suggest that commands are entered directly into the treatment device,” and 2) “West does not teach or suggest the accessing or display of a patient's chart,” Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as noted below.
It should be noted initial the grounds of rejection has been changed due to Applicant’s amendments – namely the laser wand.
Firstly, regarding Applicant’s argument “West does not teach or suggest that commands are entered directly into the treatment device” the examiner disagrees. See [0032] and [0128] wherein West discloses:
“In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, the system 100 includes at least one input/output circuit (I/O) 110. Example I/O 110 may include, but are not limited to, serial ports, parallel ports, physical or virtual keyboards, microphones, speakers, graphic user interfaces (GUIs), indicator lights, graphic displays, and/or other I/O means” and
“Clause 15. The apparatus of any of clauses 13 to 14, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to provide the treatment to the treatment recipient in response to instructions received via at least one of the wireless transceiver or an input device on or within the apparatus.”
Next, Applicant asserts on page 11, 3rd full paragraph “The system of the present disclosure by contrast provides a single device in which commands are entered directly into the device. West does not teach or suggest this feature.” Firstly, whether this is true or not is beside the point since this assertion is not commensurate with the claimed invention as defined by the claim language. Secondly this argument flies in the face of what West discloses in [0032].
Beginning on page 11, the end of the 4th full paragraph, with respect to the displayed chart, Applicant asserts “This cited content of West not teach or suggest a patient chart.”
Applicant then goes on to assert on page 11, the 5th full paragraph “There is no mention or suggestion by West of drawing upon a patient's actual chart which is a comprehensive, longitudinal record of a patient's health information maintained by healthcare providers to guide treatment and ensure quality care. West does not teach or suggest the accessing of a patient's chart.”
Here, it should be noted the claims do not recite or further limit the patient chart such that a patient chart is a comprehensive, longitudinal record of a patient's health information maintained by healthcare providers to guide treatment and ensure quality care. It should be noted claims 12 and 18 further limit the chart to something “comprising reports by the first patient of previous reactions to previously received treatment regimens” which is not what Applicant has argued as noted above. Additionally, support for Applicant’s argument regarding “comprehensive, longitudinal record of a patient's health information maintained by healthcare providers to guide treatment and ensure quality care” can be found nowhere in the written description. The chart without further limitation is simply and broadly interpreted as a visual display of information, such as a graph, map, or table. The disclosure of West with respect to figures 3A-3H (and the accompanying text) meet this interpretation that falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
As shown above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
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 11-12, and 18 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.
The term “high powered” in the phrase “high-powered laser device” in claim 11 (lines 1-2) and the term “high powered” in the phrase “high-powered hot laser device” in claim 18 (lines 1-2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-powered” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the presently claimed invention as defined as defined in claims 11-12 and 18.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0149061) in view of Ansari et al. (U.S. Patent 10,463,874).
Regarding claim 1, West discloses a system comprising:
a laser treatment device (one or more of laser “emitters” 116 and 118, see [0037]-[0039] and figure 2 for example, and other alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments), a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” see [0136], for example and other alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments), a memory (“memory,” see [0030]), a storage (“storage,” [0030]), a treatment head including laser treatment (for example “apparatus 200,” see [0046]-[0047]);
wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive entry of identification information for a first patient (see [0054] and figures 3A-3B),
receive entry of a body region of the first patient to receive treatment (see [0075] and figure 3F),
receive entry of a present pain level experienced in the body region (wherein discomfort and pain are interpreted as the same, see [0058] and figure 3E, for example),
access stored information from the storage describing previously reported conditions of the first patient (comprising: A) “after a therapy session, a user can provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the session. The software application can save this feedback information for later use in suggesting future therapy routines or protocols to the user and/or other users,” see [0053], and B) stored information of and/or by the patient, see [0090] for example),
based on the received entries and accessed stored information from the storage, determine a treatment regimen for the first patient (see the citations for the “access” step immediately above and also the stored customized therapies/treatments in [0036], and [0045] for example), and
commence the treatment regimen for the patient so that the laser treatment irradiates the body region through the laser treatment head in accordance with the treatment regimen (see [0053], and [0075]), and
wherein commands are entered directly into the device (wherein device is interpreted the same as system since there is nothing in the specification or claims presently to preclude such an interpretation) and the device generates a patient chart for viewing (see [0032], [0111] and [0128] and also [0053] and figures 3A-3H).
West fails to disclose the treatment head including laser treatment is in the form of a laser treatment wand.
Like West, Ansari et al. disclose a laser treatment device, system, and method having a handheld laser treatment head used to treat pain and teach providing the handheld laser treatment head in the form of a handheld laser treatment wand (“wand 215f,” see col. 10:44 through col. 11:5 and figures 2F and 3F) in order to provide a known and workable manner of delivering laser pain treatment to tissue.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of West, as taught by Ansari et al., to provide the handheld laser treatment head in the form of a handheld laser treatment wand in order to provide a known and workable manner of delivering laser pain treatment to tissue.
Regarding claim 2, West discloses the claimed invention including the laser treatment device executes the treatment regimen by manual administration by one of the first patient and by a qualified technician (see [0032], [0053], [0075], and [0111]).
Regarding claim 3, West discloses the claimed invention including the device displays a chart of the first patient (see figures 3A-3H and the accompanying written description).
Regarding claim 4, West discloses the claimed invention including the system requests entry of the first patient's present condition, the condition comprising one of feeling worse, feeling better, and experiencing no change since an immediately previous treatment (see [0053] and figure 3E for example).
Regarding claim 5, West discloses the claimed invention including changes in the condition of the first patient are incorporated into the determination of the treatment regimen (see [0058]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 6, West discloses the claimed invention including the system stores records for a plurality of patients and develops treatments for the plurality of patients (see [0054] and figures 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 7, West discloses a processor-implemented method comprising:
providing a laser administration device comprising:
a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” see [0136], for example and other alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments);
a memory (“memory,” see [0030]);
a storage (“storage,” [0030]); and
a laser treatment head (for example “apparatus 200,” see [0046]-[0047]);
accessing (comprising: A) “after a therapy session, a user can provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the session. The software application can save this feedback information for later use in suggesting future therapy routines or protocols to the user and/or other users,” see [0053], and B) stored information of and/or by the patient, see [0090] for example):
the storage a datastore describing patients' identifying information (see figures 3A-4),
patients' previously reported areas of affliction (see figures 3A-4),
patients' previously reported pain levels for the areas (see figures 3A-4), and
previous treatments administered to the patients (see [0053] and [0059]-[069]);
the microprocessor:
locating in the storage records for a first patient, the first patient presently seeking treatment by the device (see [0058]-[0069] and figures 3A-5);
determining a treatment regimen for the first patient based on input presently entered by the patient and based on content of the records (see A) “after a therapy session, a user can provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the session. The software application can save this feedback information for later use in suggesting future therapy routines or protocols to the user and/or other users,” see [0053], and B) stored information of and/or by the patient, see [0090] for example, and C) also the stored customized therapies/treatments in [0036], and [0045] for example);
activating at least the laser treatment head and administering the determined treatment regimen (see [0008], [0025], and [0053] and figures 4-5 for example);
wherein commands are entered directly into the device (wherein device is interpreted the same as system since there is nothing in the specification or claims presently to preclude such an interpretation) and the device generates a patient chart for viewing (see [0032], [0111] and [0128] and also [0053] and figures 3A-3H).
West fails to disclose the treatment head including laser treatment is in the form of a laser treatment wand.
Like West, Ansari et al. disclose a laser treatment device, system, and method having a handheld laser treatment head used to treat pain and teach providing the handheld laser treatment head in the form of a handheld laser treatment wand (“wand 215f,” see col. 10:44 through col. 11:5 and figures 2F and 3F) in order to provide a known and workable manner of delivering laser pain treatment to tissue.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of West, as taught by Ansari et al., to provide the handheld laser treatment head in the form of a handheld laser treatment wand in order to provide a known and workable manner of delivering laser pain treatment to tissue.
Regarding claim 8, West discloses the claimed invention including the device requesting of the first patient the input comprising the first patient's present condition, the condition comprising one of feeling worse, feeling better, and experiencing no change since an immediately previous treatment (see [0053], [0058] and figure 3E for example).
Regarding claim 9, West discloses the claimed invention including changes in the condition of the first patient are incorporated into the determination of the treatment regimen (see [0058]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 10, West discloses the claimed invention including the device executing the treatment regimen by manual administration by one of the first patient and a qualified technician (see [0032], [0053], [0075], and [0111]).
Regarding claim 11 , West discloses the claimed invention including the device is a high-powered laser device (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 12 , West discloses the claimed invention including the device considering contents of the chart comprising reports by the first patient of previous reactions to previously received treatment regimens (see [0053] along with the recorded history and information).
Regarding claim 13 , West discloses the claimed invention including the device authenticating the first patient before determining and administering the treatment regimen (see figures 3A-5 and the accompanying written description).
Regarding claim 14 , West discloses a method comprising:
providing a laser treatment device comprising:
a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” see [0136], for example and other alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments);
a memory (“memory,” see [0030]);
a storage (“storage,” [0030]); and
a laser treatment head (for example “apparatus 200,” see [0046]-[0047]);
accessing the storage describing patients previously having received treatment from the device (comprising: A) “after a therapy session, a user can provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the session. The software application can save this feedback information for later use in suggesting future therapy routines or protocols to the user and/or other users,” see [0053], and B) stored information of and/or by the patient, see [0090] for example);
the microprocessor:
determining from at least the storage that a first patient presently requesting treatment is a previous patient with records stored in the storage: database (see [0058]-[0069] and figures 3A-5 and the accompanying relevant written description);
determining a treatment regimen for the first patient based on patient inputs and based on contents of the records (see at least A) “after a therapy session, a user can provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the session. The software application can save this feedback information for later use in suggesting future therapy routines or protocols to the user and/or other users,” see [0053], and B) stored information of and/or by the patient, see [0090] for example and C) the stored customized therapies/treatments in [0036], and [0045] for example); and
activating treatment apparatus and administering the determined treatment regimen (see [0032], [0053] and figures 4-5);
wherein commands are entered directly into the device (wherein device is interpreted the same as system since there is nothing in the specification or claims presently to preclude such an interpretation) and the device generates a patient chart for viewing (see [0032], [0111] and [0128] and also [0053] and figures 3A-3H).
Regarding claim 15, West discloses the claimed invention including the patient inputs comprising areas of the body experiencing pain and level of pain in an afflicted area (see figures 3E-3H and the accompanying relevant written description).
Regarding claim 16, West discloses the claimed invention including the
device requesting of the first patient the input comprising the first patient's present condition, the condition comprising one of feeling worse, feeling better, and experiencing no change since an immediately previous treatment (see collectively, [0053], [0059]-[0069] and the recorded information and figures 3C-5).
Regarding claim 17, West discloses the claimed invention including changes in the condition of the first patient are incorporated into the determination of the treatment regimen (see figures 3C-5).
Regarding claim 18, West discloses the claimed invention including the device is a high-powered hot laser device (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, West discloses the claimed invention including the device considering contents of the chart comprising reports by the first patient of previous reactions to previously received treatment regimens (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 20, West discloses the claimed invention including the device executing the treatment regimen by manual administration by one of the first patient and a qualified technician (see [0032], [0053], [0075], and [0111]).
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 AARON F ROANE whose telephone number is (571)272-4771. The examiner can normally be reached generally Mon-Fri 8am-9pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/AARON F ROANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights