DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 7 include the limitation “the cover comprising: a cover portion and a wall portion projecting from the cover portion and partially surrounding an internal cavity configured to receive the cosmetic therein”. The only mention of a ”wall” in the specification is in Paragraph 23 that describes transparent walls that surround the cover. The specification does not describe the “wall” and “cover” to be separate elements, in fact Para 23 discloses “a cover 3 removed from a base 2 and shown with transparent walls (i.e., broken lines)”. Examiner believes the term “wall” here is a description of the cover wall and not a “wall portion”. Examiner did not find anything else in the specification that described “a wall portion projecting from the cover and partially surrounding an internal cavity”. Appropriate amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0071547 Decaux et al., hereinafter “Decaux” (cited previously).
Regarding claim 1, Decaux discloses a device configured for a topical light therapy (Abstract and Figure 9B), the device comprising: a base (Figure 9A, element 114 and Figure 9C, element 15 the base is the casing; See Also Annotated Figure 9B below) comprising a light-emitting diode (LED) (Figure 9B, elements 9A and Para 160; See annotated Figure 9B that shows the LED is part of the base) operably connected with a power source (Para 136); and a cover (See Annotated Figure 9B below; Cover consists of the sides of the waveguide and element 37; these portions are removable, see Para 160 and constitute the cover; Examiner would also like to point out that the instant application states that the cover (element 3) is made of waveguides) comprising: a cover portion (See Annotated Figure 9B below; Cover consists of the sides of the waveguide and element 37) and a wall portion projecting from the cover portion and partially surrounding an internal cavity configured to receive a cosmetic consumable therein (See Annotated Figure 9B, the wall protrudes outside the cover and surrounds the cavity that accepts the capsule 17 that includes reservoir 102 that holds cosmetic product 3; Examiner would like to note that a written description requirement is emitted here as described in the 112 (a) rejection above); and a waveguide (Figure 9B, elements 113, see also Para 160) corresponding with the LED (Figure 9B shows the LEDs 9A corresponding/aligning with waveguides 113), the waveguide extending through the cover portion (Annotated Figure 9B shows the waveguide extending through the cover) and the wall portion along a length of the cover (Annotated Figure 9B shows the waveguide extending through the cover and the wall portion), the waveguide having an entrance at a distal end portion of the cover within the wall portion (Annotated Figure 9B) and an exit at a proximal extent of the cover (Annotated Figure 9B and Para 161); wherein attachment of the cover to the base in an assembled configuration of the device operably associates the waveguide with the LED (Para 160 and Annotated Figure 9B shows the assembled configuration with waveguide 113 aligned with LED 9A), with the entrance of the waveguide positioned adjacent to the LED (Annotated Figure 9B, elements 9A and 113) such that at least a portion of a light beam of the LED is transmitted from the entrance of the waveguide to the exit of the waveguide at the proximal extent of the cover while the device is in the assembled configuration for the topical light therapy (Para 160-161 and 133).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9B
Regarding claim 2, Decaux discloses a base adapter configured for reversible attachment of a cosmetic to the base (Figure 9B & C, element 17, the cosmetic, is detachable from 15, the base. Hinges 130/103 are the adapters that holds the two parts together).
Regarding claim 4, Decaux discloses circuitry configured for selection of a mode of operation of the device among a plurality of modes of operation of the device (Para 102; “a mode of operation” is not defined, simply controlling the settings of the LED, like changing the voltage, irradiance, power, etc. is a change in mode of operation).
Regarding claim 5, Decaux discloses the LED is of a plurality of LEDs (Figure 9A, elements 9A) and the waveguide is of a plurality of waveguides of the cover (Figure 9B, elements 113 and Para 160 stating “one or more light guides”).
Regarding claim 7, Decaux discloses a device configured for a topical light therapy (Abstract and Figure 9B), the device comprising: a base (Figure 9A, element 114 and Figure 9C, element 15 the base is the casing; See Also Annotated Figure 9B), comprising: a LED (Figure 9B, elements 9A and Para 160; See annotated Figure 9B that shows the LED is part of the base) operably connected with a power source (Para 136), and a base adapter configured for reversible attachment of a cosmetic (Figure 9B & C, element 17, the cosmetic, is detachable from 15, the base. Hinges 130/103 are the adapters that holds the two parts together) thereto; and a cover (Figure 9B, element 17) configured for reversible attachment to the base (Figure 9B & C, element 17, the cosmetic/cover, is detachable from 15, the base. Hinges 130/103 are the adapters that holds the two parts together) to form an assembled configuration of the device (See Annotated Figure 9B that shows the assembled device); the cover comprising: a cover portion (See Annotated Figure 9B below; Cover consists of the sides of the waveguide and element 37) and a wall portion projecting from the cover portion and partially surrounding an internal cavity configured to receive a cosmetic consumable therein (See Annotated Figure 9B, the wall protrudes outside the cover and surrounds the cavity that accepts the capsule 17 that includes reservoir 102 that holds cosmetic product 3; Examiner would like to note that a written description requirement is emitted here as described in the 112 (a) rejection above); and a waveguide (Figure 9B, elements 113, see also Para 160) corresponding with the LED (Figure 9B shows the LEDs 9A corresponding/aligning with waveguides 113), the waveguide extending through the cover portion (Annotated Figure 9B shows the waveguide extending through the cover) and the wall portion along a length of the cover (Annotated Figure 9B shows the waveguide extending through the cover and the wall portion), the waveguide having an entrance at a distal end portion of the cover within the wall portion (Annotated Figure 9B) and an exit at a proximal extent of the cover (Annotated Figure 9B and Para 161); wherein attachment of the cover to the base in the assembled configuration of the device operably associates the waveguide with the LED (Para 160 and Annotated Figure 9B shows the assembled configuration with waveguide 113 aligned with LED 9A), with the entrance of the waveguide positioned adjacent to the LED (Annotated Figure 9B, elements 9A and 113) such that at least a portion of a light beam of the LED is transmitted from the entrance of the waveguide to the exit of the waveguide at the proximal extent of the cover while the device is in the assembled configuration for the topical light therapy (Para 160-161 and 133).
Regarding claim 8, Decaux discloses the cosmetic is attached to the base, the device is configured for the topical light therapy in parallel with application of the cosmetic to a portion of a subject’s body (Para 160).
Regarding claim 9, Decaux discloses the cosmetic is not attached to the base, the device is configured for the topical light therapy in absence of application of the cosmetic to a portion of a subject’s body (Para 160; the cosmetic capsule can be removed, therefore its inherent that light can be applied without the cosmetic product).
Regarding claim 11, Decaux discloses the LED is of a plurality of LEDs (Figure 9A, elements 9A) and the waveguide is of a plurality of waveguides of the cover (Figure 9B, elements 113 and Para 160 stating “one or more light guides”).
Regarding claim 13, Decaux discloses circuitry configured for operable selection of a mode of operation of the device among a plurality of modes of operation of the device (Para 102; “a mode of operation” is not defined, simply controlling the settings of the LED, like changing the voltage, irradiance, power, etc. is a change in mode of operation).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0071547 Decaux et al., hereinafter “Decaux”, in view of US 2018/0168318 Streeter et al., hereinafter “Streeter” (cited previously).
Regarding claim 3, Decaux discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Decaux does not disclose a communication interface, a recharge interface, or both.
However, Streeter discloses a phototherapy cosmetic device (Abstract and Figure 3), and teaches a communication interface, a recharge interface, or both (Para 59; a recharge interface is disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a recharge interface, as taught by Streeter, in the invention of Decaux, in order to recharge the battery fueling the applicator (Streeter; Para 59).
Regarding claim 6, Decaux discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Decaux does not disclose at least a second portion of the light beam is scattered from the waveguide at a position between the entrance and exit.
However, Streeter teaches at least a second portion of the light beam is scattered from the waveguide at a position between the entrance and exit (Para 4; this limitation is very broad, examiner interprets this as: as the light beam passes through the waveguide a second beam would form. Para 4 discloses all types of waveguides such as “diffractive elements (e.g., gratings, cross-gratings, or the like), diffusing elements, etchings, facets, grooves, lens structures, light-diffusing structures, mirrored structures, mirrored surfaces, optical micro-prisms, lenses (e.g., micro-lenses or the like), reflective coatings, reflective materials, reflective surfaces”; some of these elements like diffusers, mirrors, reflective surfaces, etc.. are known to scatter the light in the waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed light beam scattering, as taught by Streeter, in the invention of Decaux, in order to direct light to focal regions of the biological structure (Streeter; Para 4).
Regarding claim 12, Decaux discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Decaux does not disclose a communication interface, a recharge interface, or both.
However, Streeter discloses a phototherapy cosmetic device (Abstract and Figure 3), and teaches a communication interface, a recharge interface, or both (Para 59; a recharge interface is disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a recharge interface, as taught by Streeter, in the invention of Decaux, in order to recharge the battery fueling the applicator (Streeter; Para 59).
Regarding claim 14, Decaux discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Decaux does not disclose at least a second portion of the light beam is scattered from the waveguide at a position of the waveguide between the entrance and exit.
However, Streeter teaches at least a second portion of the light beam is scattered from the waveguide at a position of the waveguide between the entrance and exit (Para 4; this limitation is very broad, examiner interprets this as: as the light beam passes through the waveguide a second beam would form. Para 4 discloses all types of waveguides such as “diffractive elements (e.g., gratings, cross-gratings, or the like), diffusing elements, etchings, facets, grooves, lens structures, light-diffusing structures, mirrored structures, mirrored surfaces, optical micro-prisms, lenses (e.g., micro-lenses or the like), reflective coatings, reflective materials, reflective surfaces”; some of these elements like diffusers, mirrors, reflective surfaces, etc.. are known to scatter the light in the waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed light beam scattering, as taught by Streeter, in the invention of Decaux, in order to direct light to focal regions of the biological structure (Streeter; Para 4).
Regarding claim 15, Decaux discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Decaux does not disclose the second portion of the light beam creates an optical effect at least at the position of the waveguide between the entrance and exit when scattered therefrom.
However, Streeter teaches the second portion of the light beam creates an optical effect at least at the position of the waveguide between the entrance and exit when scattered therefrom. (Para 4; this limitation is very broad; examiner interprets this as: as the light beam passes through the waveguide a second beam would form. Para 4 discloses all types of waveguides such as “diffractive elements (e.g., gratings, cross-gratings, or the like), diffusing elements, etchings, facets, grooves, lens structures, light-diffusing structures, mirrored structures, mirrored surfaces, optical micro-prisms, lenses (e.g., micro-lenses or the like), reflective coatings, reflective materials, reflective surfaces”; some of these elements like diffusers, mirrors, reflective surfaces, etc.. are known to scatter the light in the waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed light beam scattering, as taught by Streeter, in the invention of Decaux, in order to direct light to focal regions of the biological structure (Streeter; Para 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Refer to 112 (a) Written description rejection above.
Refer to 102 (a)(1) rejection above for the rejection of the newly amended limitations with arguments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights