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
1. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 02/02/2024. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Specification Objections
2. The specification is objected to for the following informalities. Appropriate corrections are required. No new matter should be added.
(a) Omitted word (paragraph [0001])
In paragraph [0001], the phrase “a remedy system configured apply one or more acne remedies” omits the word “to” and should read “a remedy system configured to apply one or more acne remedies.” A corresponding claim objection is set forth below.
(b) Grammatical informality (paragraphs [0039] and [0080])
In paragraphs [0039] and [0080], the phrase “In some embodiment, the one or more formulas are remedies for soothing irritation” recites the singular “embodiment” where the plural “embodiments” is intended and should read “In some embodiments.”
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
3. 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.
Applying the three-prong analysis set forth above to the present claims, the following limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “a suction mechanism configured to remove acne material” (claim 1) satisfies the three-prong analysis. Under prong (A), the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder used as a substitute for “means” and having no specific structural meaning. Under prong (B), the generic placeholder “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “configured to remove acne material,” linked by the phrase “configured to.” Under prong (C), the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the recited function of removing acne material, and the term “suction mechanism” is not, of itself, a definite structure that performs the recited function. Because all three prongs are satisfied, the limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The limitation “a remedy system configured to apply one or more acne remedies” (claim 1) likewise satisfies the three-prong analysis. Under prong (A), the term “system” is a generic placeholder used as a substitute for “means” and having no specific structural meaning. Under prong (B), the generic placeholder “system” is modified by the functional language “configured to apply one or more acne remedies,” linked by the phrase “configured to.” Under prong (C), the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the recited function of applying one or more acne remedies. Because all three prongs are satisfied, the limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a suction mechanism configured to remove acne material” in claim 1, lines 5 and 14; and “a remedy system configured to apply one or more acne remedies” in claim 1, line 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification identifies the following corresponding structure described as performing the claimed functions.
For “a suction mechanism configured to remove acne material,” the corresponding structure is the suction system 150 shown in FIG. 2, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes that “the applicator 100 includes a suction system 150, which may be a piezoelectric pump, such as shown in FIG. 2, and may be any component capable of suctioning … material into the chamber 110” (specification [0043]; see also [0003], “the suction mechanism comprises a piezoelectric pump”; and [0062], “the suction system is a pump, such as an electrothermal pump, a solenoid pump, an electric pump, or a piezoelectric pump”). The suction system 150 is linked to the recited function in that it “forms a partial vacuum” that pulls acne material from the skin into the chamber 110 (specification [0038], [0062]).
For “a remedy system configured to apply one or more acne remedies,” the corresponding structure is the reservoir 115, the valve 117, and the formula tube 119 (also described as a formula applicator 127) shown in FIG. 2, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes that “the applicator 100 includes a remedy system, including the reservoir 115, the valve 117, and the formula tube 119” (specification [0039]; see also [0004] and [0042]). The remedy system is linked to the recited function in that the reservoir 115 holds the one or more remedies, the formula tube 119 fluidly connects the reservoir 115 to the valve 117, and “the one or more remedies may flow through the formula tube 119 to the valve 117, and then out the valve 117 either through the opening 125 or the treatment plane” onto the skin (specification [0039]).
The limitations “a suction mechanism” and “a remedy system,” as further limited in claims 6 and 7 respectively, are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim 6 recites that the suction mechanism comprises a piezoelectric pump, and claim 7 recites that the remedy system comprises one or more reservoirs and a valve; these claims recite sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited functions, and the presumption against interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is therefore not overcome for those claims.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a remedy system configured apply one or more acne remedies” should read “a remedy system configured to apply one or more acne remedies”. The word “to” is omitted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
5. 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.
6. Claims 8 and 11-14 and 20 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding the term “a smart device” (claims 11-14), the term is a relative term used without definition. A person of ordinary skill cannot determine what devices fall within, or outside of, a “smart device.” For purposes of examination, “a smart device” is interpreted to encompass any computing device comprising a processor and memory (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet, or a computer).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the valve” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 8 depends on claim 6, which recites that the suction mechanism comprises a piezoelectric pump but does not recite a valve; the valve is instead introduced in claim 7. A person of ordinary skill therefore cannot determine to which element “the valve” refers. For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as newly introducing a valve. Applicant may amend the dependency or otherwise provide proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the treatment plane” also lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 8 depends on claim 6, which does not recite a treatment plane; the treatment plane is instead introduced in claim 2. For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as newly introducing a treatment plane. Applicant may amend the dependency or otherwise provide proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation directed to determining whether the user is “a same user associated with the stored” treatment data lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the stored treatment data. Claim 20 depends on claim 15, which does not recite storing treatment data; storing treatment data is instead recited in claim 17. For purposes of examination, claim 20 is interpreted as newly introducing stored treatment data. Applicant may amend the dependency or otherwise provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignon et al. (US 2007/0156124 A1; hereinafter “Ignon”) in view of Ripper et al. (US 2009/0177256 A1; hereinafter “Ripper”) and Allen et al. (US 2002/0138049 A1; hereinafter “Allen”).
Regarding claim 1, Ignon discloses an applicator for treating skin, including acne-prone skin, comprising:
(a) a removal system comprising a suction mechanism configured to remove acne material and a chamber for containing the acne material (Ignon [0100]: “A vacuum can be applied by the handpiece assembly 18; the console 12 can have a pump that applies a vacuum,” drawing waste material from the skin; [0082]-[0083]: the intermediate chamber 116 receives material drawn through the tip; [0098]: the tip 34 is used for “extractions of, for example, sebum, blackheads”);
(b) a remedy system configured to apply one or more acne remedies (Ignon [0016]: a manifold system “configured to receive releasably at least two bottles”; [0011]: the manifold “hold releasably a plurality of fluid sources and delivers fluid to the handpiece assembly”; [0090], [0138]: a flow control valve delivers fluid from the containers to the handpiece; [0127]: the treatment fluid “may comprise a salicylic acid serum”);
(c) a light source configured to apply a light stimulus to skin (Ignon [0102]: the tip 34 “has a pair of energy sources 151 in the form of LEDs” that “deliver a desired amount of energy to the skin”; [0140]: blue LED light “at about 430 nanometers improves the appearance of oily and acne-prone skin”); and
(d) a processor configured to direct the applicator to apply a treatment (Ignon [0088]: a controller 60 “configured to control the fluid flow out of the tip 34”; [0011]: a console with a user input device “such as a computer, touchscreen, keyboard”; [0137]: “the computer records patient and treatment data, for example data gathered during treatment”).
Ignon further discloses a treatment plane (Ignon [0093]: the tip 34 comprises an outer member 120 that “defines the periphery of the distal end 102 of the tip 34” and contacts the skin) and an array of protruding inner members 124 that engage and penetrate the skin (Ignon [0093]- [0096]).
Ignon does not disclose one or more microneedles.
However, Allen teaches a microneedle device comprising “a substrate; one or more microneedles; and … a reservoir for delivery of drugs” (Allen [0034]), the device being applied to the skin such that “the microneedles 12 penetrate through the stratum corneum and enter the viable epidermis” (Allen [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the protruding inner members of Ignon with the microneedles of Allen, as taught by Allen, in order to deliver Ignon’s treatment fluid below the stratum corneum, with a reasonable expectation of success. Ignon itself identifies this need, explaining that topically applied active ingredients “only work as deep as the active ingredients can passively migrate through the remaining epidermis” (Ignon [0010]).
The modified applicator of Ignon does not have an optical sensor configured to detect acne.
However, Ripper teaches a handheld skin-treatment appliance in which “an optical sensor 360 is coupled to the processor 202 and is used to detect skin protuberances or skin color irregularities that may be associated with acne,” whereby the processor acts as the user moves the appliance over the skin (Ripper [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optical sensor and processor of Ripper into the applicator of Ignon, as taught by Ripper, in order to automatically identify affected areas for targeted treatment, with a reasonable expectation of success, particularly because Ignon already provides a computer-controlled console (Ignon [0011], [0137]).
9. Regarding claim 2, the modified applicator of Ignon has a treatment plane in the form of the skin-contacting outer member 120, which “defines the periphery of the distal end 102 of the tip 34” and, when placed against skin, “can inhibit fluid flow between the tip 34 and the skin,” with the inner member 124 disposed within that periphery (Ignon [0093]). Because the inner members 124 are located inside the periphery defined by the outer member 120, providing those inner members with the microneedles of Allen, as set forth for claim 1, places the microneedles within, and thus surrounded by, the treatment plane.
10. Regarding claim 3, the modified applicator of Ignon has a tip 34 configured to massage the skin (Ignon [0080]: “The illustrated tip 34 is configured to massage the skin 80”; [0099]: “the spiral-like tip 34 massages the skin 80”), the tip defining the treatment plane, and thus has one or more massagers located on the treatment plane.
11. Regarding claim 4, the modified applicator of Ignon has a treatment plane that is rounded. As shown in Figures 6A-6D of Ignon, the outer member 120 that defines the periphery of the treatment plane at the distal end 102 of the tip 34 is rounded.
PNG
media_image1.png
304
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the modified applicator of Ignon has a rounded treatment plane.
12. Regarding claim 5, the modified applicator of Ignon has a pair of LEDs 151 carried on the tip 34 (Ignon [0102]), i.e., a light source disposed on the treatment plane.
13. Regarding claim 7, the modified applicator of Ignon has a manifold that releasably holds a plurality of bottles/containers (reservoirs) (Ignon [0011], [0016], [0072]) and a flow-control valve that delivers fluid from the containers to the handpiece (Ignon [0090], [0138]), and thus has a remedy system comprising one or more reservoirs and a valve configured to apply the one or more remedies to skin.
14. Regarding claim 8, the modified applicator of Ignon has a flow-control valve associated with the handpiece (Ignon [0090]); the modified applicator of Ignon does not have the valve disposed on the treatment plane. Shifting the position of the flow-control valve to the skin-contacting treatment plane is, however, a rearrangement of known parts that does not modify the operation of the device, and the particular location of the valve is not disclosed as critical. Such a rearrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.
15. Regarding claim 9, the modified applicator of Ignon has an array of protruding inner members 124 (Ignon [0093]- [0096]) that are provided with the microneedles of Allen, and Allen expressly describes “an array of microneedles” that “can include a mixture of microneedles having, for example, various lengths, outer diameters, inner diameters, cross-sectional shapes, and spacings between the microneedles” (Allen [0043]; see also [0015], a hollow microneedle array). The modified applicator of Ignon therefore has one or more microneedles that are a plurality arranged in an array.
16. Regarding claim 10, the modified applicator of Ignon has LEDs that emit blue light at about 430 nanometers, red light between about 600 and 700 nanometers, and infrared LED light between about 700 and 1,000 nanometers (Ignon [0140]). The modified applicator of Ignon therefore has a light source configured to emit blue, near infrared, and/or infrared light.
17. Regarding claim 11, the modified applicator of Ignon has the applicator (handpiece assembly 18) of claim 1 and a console having a user input device such as a computer that controls the handpiece (Ignon [0011]) and records patient and treatment data (Ignon [0137]). Under the interpretation of “a smart device” set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above (any computing device comprising a processor and memory), the console computer of Ignon, which is coupled to and controls the handpiece assembly through the fluid line and control system, is a smart device communicatively coupled to the applicator.
18. Regarding claim 12, the modified applicator of Ignon records patient and treatment data, including data gathered during treatment (Ignon [0137]), i.e., a smart device configured to store treatment data comprising an instance of treatment.
Ignon et al. (US 2007/0156124 A1; hereinafter “Ignon”) in view of Ripper et al. (US 2009/0177256 A1; hereinafter “Ripper”) and Allen et al. (US 2002/0138049 A1; hereinafter “Allen”).
19. Regarding claim 15, Ignon discloses a method of treating skin, including acne-prone skin, comprising suctioning material from the skin (Ignon [0100]: a vacuum is applied by the handpiece assembly, the console having a pump that applies the vacuum; [0098]: the tip 34 is used for extractions of, for example, sebum and blackheads), illuminating the skin with light treatment (Ignon [0102]: the tip 34 has a pair of energy sources 151 in the form of LEDs; [0140]: blue LED light at about 430 nanometers improves the appearance of oily and acne-prone skin), and applying one or more remedies to the skin (Ignon [0127]: the treatment fluid may comprise a salicylic acid serum).
Ignon does not disclose a step of penetrating the skin with one or more microneedles.
However, Allen teaches a microneedle device comprising “a substrate; one or more microneedles; and … a reservoir for delivery of drugs” (Allen [0034]), the device being applied to the skin such that “the microneedles 12 penetrate through the stratum corneum and enter the viable epidermis” (Allen [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ignon to penetrate the skin at the affected areas with the microneedles of Allen, as taught by Allen, in order to deliver Ignon’s treatment fluid below the stratum corneum, with a reasonable expectation of success. Ignon itself identifies this need, explaining that topically applied active ingredients “only work as deep as the active ingredients can passively migrate through the remaining epidermis” (Ignon [0010]).
The modified method of Ignon does not have a step of detecting acne.
However, Ripper teaches a handheld skin-treatment appliance in which “an optical sensor 360 is coupled to the processor 202 and is used to detect skin protuberances or skin color irregularities that may be associated with acne” (Ripper [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ignon to detect acne at the one or more affected areas, as taught by Ripper, in order to automatically identify affected areas for targeted treatment, with a reasonable expectation of success.
20. Regarding claim 16, the modified method of Ignon includes massaging the one or more affected areas, Ignon disclosing that the tip 34 is configured to massage the skin (Ignon [0080]).
21. Regarding claim 17, the modified method of Ignon includes storing treatment data, Ignon disclosing that the computer records treatment data (Ignon [0137]), i.e., storing treatment data comprising an instance of the treatment.
22. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignon in view of Ripper and Allen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujisaki (US 2017/0112974 A1; hereinafter “Fujisaki”).
The modified applicator of Ignon does not have a suction mechanism that comprises a piezoelectric pump.
However, Fujisaki teaches a negative pressure device that is worn on the skin surface and draws material from a treatment site by suction generated by a piezoelectric pump. Fujisaki discloses “a suction chamber that is brought into a negative pressure by driving of a piezoelectric pump” (Fujisaki, Abstract), and describes that the piezoelectric pump 36 “transports gas from the suction port of the suction chamber 30 to the tip of the nozzle” such that “a negative pressure is generated in the suction chamber 30,” the pump unit being worn “on a skin surface” of the user, and a controller adjusting the pressure of the suction chamber by feedback control of the piezoelectric pump (Fujisaki, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the suction mechanism of the modified applicator of Ignon as the piezoelectric pump of Fujisaki, as taught by Fujisaki, as a simple substitution of one known suction generating means for another to obtain the predictable result of drawing acne material from the skin at a controlled pressure, with a reasonable expectation of success. Fujisaki, which is directed to a device that applies suction to a skin site and is classified with Ignon in the field of medical suction devices having a pump at the suction site, demonstrates that a piezoelectric pump is a known and suitable means for generating such suction.
23. Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignon in view of Ripper and Allen, as applied to claims 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Asah (US 2015/0045843 A1; hereinafter “Asah”).
Regarding claim 13, the modified applicator of Ignon does not have a smart device further configured to detect one or more indicators of irritation and, when the one or more indicators of irritation are detected, prevent treatment.
However, Asah teaches a hand-held skin-treatment device comprising a skin sensor that may be “based on mechanical detection, electrical detection, or light reflectance detection” of the skin surface (Asah [0043]), together with a controller “connected to the skin sensor and configured to prevent light therapy and electrotherapy in response to a signal from the skin sensor, so that therapy cannot be performed unless the hand-held device is properly positioned in operating contact with the skin surface to be treated” (Asah [0050]; see also [0045]). It is acknowledged that the sensor condition upon which Asah inhibits therapy is the presence or absence of skin contact rather than an indicator of irritation. Asah nonetheless teaches the technique of conditioning treatment on a sensed skin parameter and inhibiting the treatment output when that parameter indicates that treatment should not proceed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the smart device of the modified applicator of Ignon to detect a further sensed skin parameter, namely an indicator of irritation, and to prevent treatment in response, as taught by Asah, as the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid delivering treatment to skin that should not be treated.
24. Regarding claim 18, the modified method of Ignon does not have detecting one or more indicators of irritation and, when the one or more indicators of irritation are detected, preventing treatment.
However, Asah teaches a hand-held skin-treatment device comprising a skin sensor (Asah [0043]) and a controller “configured to prevent light therapy and electrotherapy in response to a signal from the skin sensor, so that therapy cannot be performed unless the hand-held device is properly positioned in operating contact with the skin surface to be treated” (Asah [0050]; see also [0045]). As noted for claim 13, the condition upon which Asah inhibits therapy is skin contact rather than irritation; Asah nonetheless teaches conditioning treatment on a sensed skin parameter and inhibiting treatment when that parameter indicates that treatment should not proceed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect an indicator of irritation and to prevent treatment in response, as taught by Asah, as the use of a known safety-interlock technique to improve a similar method in the same way, with a reasonable expectation of success.
25. Claims 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignon in view of Ripper and Allen, as applied to claims 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Youngquist et al. (US 2015/0230863 A1; hereinafter “Youngquist”).
Regarding claim 14, the modified applicator of Ignon does not have a smart device further configured to determine an amount of time between a first treatment and a second treatment, compare the amount of time to a threshold, and prevent treatment when the amount of time is below the threshold.
However, Youngquist teaches an internet-connected skin-treatment system in which a microcontroller “collects and processes real-time treatment usage and sensor feedback data,” the use data being broadcast with each treatment to a smart phone, tablet, or local computer, transmitted to a data server, and “time stamped,” with the collected data “aggregated and analyzed for trending feedback and skin care routine optimization” (Youngquist [0025]). Youngquist further teaches that the device is “intended to be used repeatedly according to a treatment regimen,” such that “each subsequent treatment offers an opportunity to evaluate the results from the previous effort” (Youngquist [0008]; see also [0016]). Youngquist therefore supplies a time-stamped treatment history and the express purpose of optimizing the treatment routine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the smart device of the modified applicator of Ignon to determine the elapsed time between successive treatments, compare it to a threshold, and withhold treatment until the threshold interval has elapsed, as taught by Youngquist, as the application of ordinary programming to information already collected, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to carry out the treatment regimen at appropriate intervals.
26. Regarding claim 19, the modified method of Ignon does not have determining an amount of time between a first treatment and a second treatment, comparing the amount of time to a threshold, and preventing treatment when the amount of time is below the threshold.
However, Youngquist teaches the time-stamped treatment history and routine-optimization purpose set forth for claim 14 above: with each treatment the use data is “time stamped” and “aggregated and analyzed for trending feedback and skin care routine optimization” (Youngquist [0025]), and the device is “intended to be used repeatedly according to a treatment regimen” (Youngquist [0008]; see also [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the elapsed time between successive treatments, compare it to a threshold, and withhold a subsequent treatment until the threshold interval has elapsed, as taught by Youngquist, as the application of ordinary programming to information already collected, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to carry out the treatment regimen at appropriate intervals.
27. Regarding claim 20 (examined as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), the modified method of Ignon does not have determining whether a user of the applicator is a same user associated with the stored treatment data and, when the user is not the same user, preventing treatment.
However, Youngquist teaches a remote data analysis system configured to “identify previously received device usage data associated with the same treatment device or user as the currently received device usage data” (Youngquist [0016]; see also Ignon [0137], the console computer records patient and treatment data), thereby associating stored treatment data with a particular user and determining whether currently received data is associated with that same user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to condition treatment upon that determination, that is, to withhold treatment where the current user is not the user associated with the stored treatment data, as taught by Youngquist, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent one user from receiving treatment on the basis of another user’s treatment history.
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVAUN L HARRIOTT whose email is jharriott@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TIMOTHY A 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAVAUN L HARRIOTT/
Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights