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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, Group 1, subspecies Figures 2-6, Figures 1-8 in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim in the reply filed on February 27, 2026. Although applicant disagreed with the restriction, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one of number of mini containers” in line 16 of the claim. It is suggested this limitation be changed to “one of the number of mini containers” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 4 recites “the skin handheld system further comprises a number of switches and valves provide” in lines 1-2 of the claim. It is suggested this limitation be changed to “the skin handheld system further comprises a number of switches and valves to provide” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the dual plate holder” in line 3 of the claim. It is suggested this limitation be changed to “the dual-function plate holder” to consistently refer to the limitation in line 1 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…preparing a first section of the two sections, of a dual-function plate, for the application of a skin treatment procedure, selected from a list consisting of: micro-needling, microdermabrasion, laser heating, deep massaging, or another procedure…” in lines 8-11 of the claim. The limitation “or another procedure” renders the claim indefinite. One skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the Markush claim due to an inability to envision all the members of the Markush grouping. The limitation “or another procedure” encompasses any other procedure. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives. The limitation “or another procedure” is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Furthermore, a proper Markush grouping requires the alternatives defined by the group to share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. The limitation “or another procedure” is overly broad and it is unclear what substantial structural feature and common use is shared between the alternatives of the grouping. See MPEP § 2117. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a dual-function plate” in line 8 of the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to an additional dual-function plate to the plurality of dual-function plates or a particular dual-function plate of the plurality of dual-function plates. The examiner interprets the limitation to be “a dual-function plate of the plurality of dual-function plates” for examination purposes.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a dual-function plate” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear whether these limitations are in addition to the limitation “a plurality of dual-function plates” in line 2 of claim 1, the dual-function plate in line 8 of claim 1, or a dual-function plate in addition to the limitations in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a dual-function plate” in lines 3 and 3-4 of the claim. It is unclear whether these limitations are in addition to the limitation “a plurality of dual-function plates” in line 2 of claim 1, the dual-function plate in line 8 of claim 1, or a dual-function plate in addition to the limitations in claim 1. It is further unclear if the second recitation of “a dual-function plate” in lines 3-4 refer to the same first recitation of the limitation in line 3 of claim 4 or an additional dual-function plate. The examiner interprets the first limitation to be “a dual-function plate of the plurality of dual-function plates” and the second to be “the dual-function plate” for examination purposes.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a number of mini containers” in lines 1-2 of the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation refers back to the limitation “a number of mini containers in claim 1 or an additional number of mini containers. The examiner interprets the limitation to be “the number of mini containers” for examination purposes.
Claim 8 recites “a single dual-function plate of the plurality of dual-function plates, provides a feature selected from the list consisting of: micro- needling, microdermabrasion, laser heating, deep massaging, or another procedure” which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “or another procedure” renders the claim indefinite. One skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the Markush claim due to an inability to envision all the members of the Markush grouping. The limitation “or another procedure” encompasses any other procedure. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives. The limitation “or another procedure” is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Furthermore, a proper Markush grouping requires the alternatives defined by the group to share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. The limitation “or another procedure” is overly broad and it is unclear what substantial structural feature and common use is shared between the alternatives of the grouping. See MPEP § 2117. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a dual-function plate” in line 1 of the claim. It is unclear whether these limitations are in addition to the limitation “a plurality of dual-function plates” in line 2 of claim 1, the dual-function plate in line 8 of claim 1, or a dual-function plate in addition to the limitations in claim 1. The examiner interprets the limitation to be “a dual-function plate” for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shadduck et al (US 20180303515).
Regarding claim 1, Shadduck et al (hereafter Shadduck) discloses a method for a skin treatment, the method comprising; providing a skin handheld system (50) comprising a plurality of dual-function plates (paragraph 0052, one or more tips 110), each plate being used for a specific skin care treatment (fluid skin treatment system, paragraph 0049), wherein, each plate is capable of applying two compatible skin procedures simultaneously to maximize skin responses to a specific skin treatment (paragraph 0052, abrasion or micro-needling with fluid outflow, paragraph 0086), wherein a surface of each dual-function plate is subdivided into two sections (center of 122 and perimeter portion 148 are separate sections), each section having required tools for application of one of the skin care treatments (micro-needling/abrasion and fluid outflow for cleansing/infusing); preparing a first section (149a, 149b, 132) of the two sections, of a dual-function plate, for the application of a skin treatment procedure, selected from a list consisting of: micro-needling, microdermabrasion, laser heating, deep massaging, or another procedure, to a person's skin (paragraph 0052-0078); using a second section of the two sections having a number of fluid channels (420)) to supply skincare products and/or to remove any waste materials on the surface of the dual- function plate (paragraphs 0063-0064, 0086, infuse fluid from fluid source); saving skincare products or cleaning fluids in a number of mini containers; pumping skincare products or fluids from one of number of mini containers (450, 460), through a number of connecting tubes (420, figure 11A), to fluid channels on the surface of the dual-function plate; and collecting waste materials and dead skin from the surface of the dual-function plate, by vacuum suction (140, 848, paragraph 0072), through connecting tubes to a waste collection container (450).
Regarding claim 2, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein a one or two mini/micro vacuum pumps (paragraph 0093 micropump) are used for generating a required air pressure to move skincare fluids from fluid containers to the surface of a dual-function plate and for sucking waste fluids and dead skin from the surface of the plurality of the dual-function plates to a waste container (paragraph 0063-0064, 0086, 0072, 0093).
Regarding claim 3, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein a power supply (850, battery unit, paragraph 0093) is used to provide required power to mini/micro vacuum pumps and power (power source) to operate miniature solid-state laser diodes or LEDs (paragraph 0078, LED).
Regarding claim 4, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the skin handheld system further comprises a number of switches (finger activated switch, paragraph 0089/ controller paragraph 0072) and valves provide control of air pressure used in moving fluids from serum containers to a dual-function plate and sucking waste materials from a dual-function plate to a waste collection container (paragraph 0072, controlling a valve).
Regarding claim 5, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 4, wherein an electronic circuit is used in controlling power to mini vacuum pumps used in pumping skincare fluids and in sucking waste materials, as well as in controlling digital or analog power used in controlling laser diodes operation (paragraph 0072- 0075, circuits, chip, controller)
Regarding claim 6, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 5, further comprises a dual-function plate holder (405) that connects any of the plurality of dual-function plates to a body of the system through a coupling piece (distal end of 405 received within tip 410) engaged to the body of the system and the dual plate holder (figure 11A).
Regarding claim 7, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 6, further comprising a coupling plate (440d) connecting a number of mini containers to the body of the system (figure 11A).
Regarding claim 8, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 7, wherein a single dual-function plate of the plurality of dual-function plates, provides a feature selected from the list consisting of: micro- needling, microdermabrasion, laser heating, deep massaging, or another procedure (microdermabrasion, paragraph 0052, 0068), is connected, one at a time (only one tip is connected), to the skin care system in a predetermined sequence for optimal skin care treatment (translate device across skin, claim 13), based on skin type and aging (paragraphs 0012-0013, remove visible lines due to aging and allow for improved absorption of topical skin treatment products, one or more tips for more or less aggressive dermabrasion; patient).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shadduck et al (US 20180303515), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fiset (US 20070276455).
Regarding claim 9, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein a dual-function plate is configured for a laser treatment procedure, the first section of the dual-function plate includes one or more laser diodes, or LED (paragraph 0077), connected to a power supply and electronic control circuit, and the second section of the dual-function plate includes a polarity of engraved or build-in fluid channels (535, paragraph 0077) that supply fluids for skin healing and skin-care. Shadduck does not specifically teach that the supply fluids are also for cooling the one or more laser diodes during an operation process. However, Fiset teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention for skin treatment devices utilizing LEDs to utilize liquids to effectively transfer heat from LEDs to the ambient environment near the active junction of the LED (paragraph 0134) to provide longer life to the LEDs (paragraph 0147). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further allow for the supply fluids to also cool the one or more laser diodes during the operation process of Shadduck, as taught as known by Fiset, in order to transfer heat from the LEDs to the ambient environment to allow for the LEDS to have a longer lifespan.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shadduck et al (US 20180303515) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Shadduck discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the handheld skin care system is comprised within two handheld parts (405, 410), wherein the two handheld parts are connected together with a number of flexible tubes (448a-c), wherein the dual-function plate, with plate holder, is within a first handheld mobile part (410, figure 10) that is a head part and a remainder of the components of the system are within a second handheld mobile base part (405) of the system, wherein the head part is configured as smaller than that of the second handheld mobile part (410, figure 10). Shadduck does not specifically disclose the head part is lighter than that of the second handheld mobile part. However, it would have been within the level of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the head part of materials such that it is lighter since it is smaller and has less components than that of the second handheld part, since it has been held that since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm EST).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/ANH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771