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 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 3-11 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4-6 depend on claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “the connector tip”; it is unclear what tip is being referred to (i.e., is it the “at least one connector tip” or “at least one complementary connector tip”).
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “the connector tip”; it is unclear whether this is the same “at least one connector tip” or another.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of “the connector tip”; it is unclear whether this is the same “at least one connector tip” or another.
Claim 7 recites “the first wall” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same as “a first inner front wall” provided in line 2 or not.
Claim 7 recites “a second outer back wall shaped to match the first wall, which comprises a tip for connection to the flexible tube projecting from an outer surface of the second wall”. It is unclear based on the language, whether the tip or the flexible tube is projecting from an outer surface of the second wall.
Claims 8-11 depend on claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 8, “a device” has been crossed out in line 1. It is unclear whether the limitations that follow are directed to the same device or another.
Claim 15 recites “preferably comprises two plastic sheaths superimposed on one another which surround the flexible tube substantially over its entire length”; it is unclear whether this limitation is being required or not. The term “preferably” implies that this is the preferred method, but not necessarily required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20200001011A to Won et al. (hereinafter “Won”).
Regarding Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Won discloses a device for phototherapy treatment of a user's face (abstract, para 0016, “device 1”), comprising a maskwherein the support comprises a base (para 0017 “base 110”) and a self-supporting flexible tube for modifying the orientation of the mask while supporting it, which can be deformed along a curvilinear path while providing a support function (para 0017-0019, “strut/support 120”).
Regarding Claim 2. (Currently Amended) Won discloses the device according to claim 1wherein the flexible tube is releasably mounted with the mask and/or the base (para 0016 “detachable coupling unit 600”).
Regarding Claim 12. (Currently Amended) Won discloses the device according to claim 1,wherein the base forms a housing enclosing an electronic card for controlling the light-emitting sources according to a predefined processing protocol (para 0061, “circuit board 500, fig. 2), and wherein the holding support comprises a power cable intended to be connected at one of its ends to an electrical power source and at the other of its ends to a support for electrical connection of the light-emitting sources and which extends inside the flexible tube (para 0052 “cable C”, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13. (Currently Amended) Won discloses the device according to claim 12, wherein said support it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regard the “main trunk”, “terminal block”, or “cable gland arrangement”; under its BRI, any component could be considered to provide the same functions reads over the claimed limitations).
Regarding Claim 14. (Currently Amended) Won discloses the device according to claim 1,wherein the base comprises a ballast formed by a piece of platinum housed inside a casing forming the base (para 0052, fig. 2).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won in view of KR101122679B1 to Chul.
Regarding Claim 3. (Currently Amended) Won discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the flexible tube comprises at least one connector tipmale/female portion would read over the claimed limitation. Here, Won shows the screws in fig. 2) but fails to disclose to form a releasable electrical connection, for example of the magnetization type, to allow the passage of an electrical current between the tube and the mask and/or between the tube and the base.
Chul, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches a mask that is removably connected to a mounting portion via a power supply terminal (para 0042). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Won with the teachings of Chul to provide the predictable result of providing a removable/separable mask (para 0042, 0018, etc.).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won in view of Chul (KR101122679B1) and US 20180117355 to Loupis et al. (hereinafter “Loupis”).
Regarding Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Won as modified by Chul renders obvious the device according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the releasable mechanical connection is achieved by axial mounting of the connector tip of the tube in the base or mask
Loupis, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to provide various toolless connection between the removable lamp and the support device, such as requiring a plurality of actions to be performed in short succession, or in a certain order, e.g. unscrewing fasteners then releasing a clamp (para 0129). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Won as modified by Chul with the known teachings of Won to provide the predictable result of toollessly connecting/disconnecting the components.
It is further noted that as claimed, and without providing any evidence of criticality, changing one connection method with another method is understood to provide the same outcome and to be mere design choice by the inventor. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) and MPEP 2143 (Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness – Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Regarding Claim 5. (Currently Amended) Won as modified by Chul renders obvious the device according to claim 3 but fails to disclose wherein the releasable mechanical connection is formed by an engagement groove cooperating with a lug by axial mounting of the connector tip in the complementary connector tip followed by relative rotation to immobilize both tips together.
Loupis, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to provide various toolless connection between the removable lamp and the support device, such as requiring a plurality of actions to be performed in short succession, or in a certain order, e.g. unscrewing fasteners then releasing a clamp (para 0129). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Won as modified by Chul with the known teachings of Won to provide the predictable result of toollessly connecting/disconnecting the components.
It is further noted that as claimed, and without providing any evidence of criticality, changing one connection method with another method is understood to provide the same outcome and to be mere design choice by the inventor. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) and MPEP 2143 (Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness – Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Regarding Claim 6. (Currently Amended) Won as modified by Chul renders obvious the device according to claim 3,but fails to disclose wherein the electrical connection of the magnetization type is formed by a magnetic element carried by the connector tip of the tube cooperating with a complementary ferromagnetic and/or magnetic element of opposite polarity carried by the mask or the base.
Loupis, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to provide various toolless connection between the removable lamp and the support device, such as requiring a plurality of actions to be performed in short succession, or in a certain order (e.g. a magnetism-based retention system) (para 0129, 0131). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Won as modified by Chul with the known teachings of Won to provide the predictable result of toollessly connecting/disconnecting the components.
It is further noted that as claimed, and without providing any evidence of criticality, changing one connection method with another method is understood to provide the same outcome and to be mere design choice by the inventor. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) and MPEP 2143 (Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness – Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over single reference Won (KR20200001011A) in view of US 20170095937 to Williams.
Regarding Claim 7. (Currently Amended) Won discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the frame comprises a first inner front wallBut fails to explicitly disclose a “tip”.
Williams, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to provide a pin and cavity to allow connection between the components (0041, fig. 1). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Won with the known teachings of Williams to provide the predictable result of connecting/disconnecting components.
Regarding Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Won as modified by Williams renders obvious 7,wherein the tip has a generally frustoconical shape (fig. 2, it is understood that the shape is generally associated with screws as used by Won; Williams para 004, fig. 1) and comprises a through channel for receiving an assembly screw
Regarding Claim 9. (Currently Amended) Won as modified by Williams renders obvious the device according to claim 8,wherein the tip comprises a metal insert housed inside the channel and provided with an internal female thread configured to cooperate with the screw (fig. 2; Williams para 0041, fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10. (Currently Amended) Won as modified by Williams renders obvious the device according to claim 7, wherein the two plastic walls are shaped to present a concavity oriented in the direction of the face to be treated (fig. 1) and the device comprises an electrical connection support carrying the light-emitting points of light extending between the two walls (para 0019, fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11. (Currently Amended) Won as modified by Williams renders obvious the device according to claim 10,wherein the frame comprises a heat dissipation plate shaped to match the concavity of the body and arranged between the two walls, on which the support is mounted on the side of the plate facing the inner wall (para 0046, “heat sink 340 to correspond to the outer shape…”).
Claim(s) 15( is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over single reference Won (KR20200001011A) in view of US 20130116719 to Shtram et al. (hereinafter “Shtram”).
Regarding Claim 15. (Currently Amended) Won discloses the device according to claim 1,wherein the holding support comprises at least one sheath which surrounds the flexible tube substantially over its entire length (para 0018, fig. 2) and preferably comprises two plastic sheaths superimposed on one another which surround the flexible tube substantially over its entire length (limitation is not positively recited. It is written as an optional limitation). But fails to disclose the sheath to be plastic.
Shtram from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known for the sheath to be made of plastic material (para 0016). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Won with the teachings of Shtram to provide the predictable result of making the sheath from plastic material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796