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 § 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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grattacaso (IT NA20110019 A1).
As to claim 1, Grattacaso discloses a device for carrying out diathermic and muscle stimulation treatments (see English translation of claims 1 and 21 in IT NA20110019 A1) comprising: a single power generator (power supply; see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1), to which there are connected a return electrode (one electrode of return; see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1), and at the opposite pole, at least two electrodes (one or more electrodes; see English translation of claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 in IT NA20110019 A1; Figures), positioned on a handpiece (hand held probe; see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1) and separated from each other by means of insulating material (since the “at least one proximal hand help prone and distal one, each on endowed with one or more electrodes”, the hand held probe material would necessarily include “insulating” or non-conductive material. Furthermore, no having insulating material disposed on or within the probe body would electrify the entire probe not just the electrodes. Therefore, the probe of IT NA20110019 A1 includes insulating material to separate the electrodes), an electronic control unit (electrical energy source; see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1) configured to manage the power supplied by said power generator (see English translation of claims 1 and 3 in IT NA20110019 A1) between said return electrode and said at least two electrodes (see English translation of claims 1 and 4 in IT NA20110019 A1), and wherein said electronic control unit is configured to generate a whole voltage signal, made up of the combination of two functional signals (see English translation of claims 4 and 6 in IT NA20110019 A1), between the electrodes on the handpiece and the return electrode (see English translation of claims 1 and 4 in IT NA20110019 A1; Figures); a first functional signal comprising a series of pulses in the frequency spectrum generating diathermy (see English translation of claims 1, 3-6 in IT NA20110019 A1); a second functional signal comprising a series of time variable amplitude radiofrequency pulses (see English translation of claims 1, 3-6 in IT NA20110019 A1), for which the development of the maximum voltage of the pulse over time provides a waveform equal to the development of the action potential of muscle (see English translation of claims 5-9 in IT NA20110019 A1), said first and second signal being combined so that the amplitude thereof is controlled in independent way (see English translation of claims 1-9 in IT NA20110019 A1).
As to claim 2, Grattacaso discloses the first signal has a null average value and frequency between 300 kHz and 1000 MHz (see English translation of claims 1, 4 and 6 in IT NA20110019 A1; “300kHz to 6 MHz” range is between “300kHz and 1000 MHz”).
As to claim 4, Grattacaso discloses the whole voltage signal comprises a cyclic repetition of a signal deriving from the combination of said two functional signals (see English translation of claims 1 and 4 in IT NA20110019 A1).
As to claim 5, Grattacaso discloses further comprising means for measuring the current flowing through each of said at least two electrodes positioned on the handpiece ( “contraction and temperature controller provided with a screen display reproducing the specified working data”; see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1).
As to claim 6, Grattacaso discloses the control unit is configured to adapt the intensity of the diathermic treatment, by varying the voltage of said first functional signal in a directly proportional way to the number of electrodes provided on the handpiece for which the measured current intensity is null (see English translation of claims 3 and 9 in IT NA20110019 A1).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grattacaso (IT NA20110019 A1). [a copy of the English translation of claims is included herein]
As to claim 3, Grattacaso discloses the device substantially as claimed with second signal is characterized by: a repetition frequency between 0.5 Hz and 500 Hz (see English translation of claims 1, 4 and 6 in IT NA20110019 A1; “1 Hz and 250 Hz” range is between “0.5 Hz and 500 Hz”) and in that said radiofrequency pulses have frequency between 300 kHz and 1000 MHz (see English translation of claims 1, 4 and 6 in IT NA20110019 A1; “300kHz to 6 MHz” range is between “300kHz and 1000 MHz”) but does not explicitly disclose said second signal is characterized by a duration of the waveform between 20 µs and 40 µs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the duration of the waveform to be between 20 µs and 40 µs, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, such a modification would provide the predictable results of optimizing the treatment waveform to meet specific patient therapeutic needs and requirements.
As to claim 7, Grattacaso discloses the device substantially as claimed with a “contraction and temperature controller” (see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1) but does not explicitly disclose the contraction controller is an accelerometer. Accelerometers are extremely well-known sensors for sensing motion or movement (such as contraction). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the contraction sensor of Grattacasco to be an accelerometer since they are extremely well-known motion sensors. Furthermore, such a modification would provide the predictable results of selecting the components to optimize performance and function. As such, the examiner considers the modified Grattacaso to disclose at least one accelerometer integral with said handpiece and connected to said electronic control unit (see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1), said electronic control unit being configured to receive in input the acceleration signal detected by said accelerometer, to integrate such signal to obtain a speed signal and to adjust the power supplied in a directly proportional way to the sliding speed of the handpiece on the treated area see English translation of claims 1 and 9 in IT NA20110019 A1.
As to claim 8, Grattacaso, and thus the modified Grattacaso, disclose the device substantially as claimed with a “contraction and temperature controller” (see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1). Therefore, Grattacaso, and thus the modified Grattacaso, disclose said handpiece comprises also at least a temperature sensor configured to detect the skin temperature value (see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1).
As to claim 9, Grattacaso, and thus the modified Grattacaso, disclose the surface of the handpiece, on which said at least two electrodes are positioned (see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1), is provided with a curved edge in contact with the skin (see English translation of claim 10 in IT NA20110019 A1; Figures).
As to claim 10, Grattacaso, and thus the modified Grattacaso, disclose at least one of the electrodes provided on the handpiece acts as return electrode (one electrode of return; see English translation of claim 1 in IT NA20110019 A1).
As to claim 11, Grattacaso discloses the invention substantially as claimed with a handpiece and power generator but does not explicitly disclose “a plurality of handpieces and a plurality of power generators” with each “generator configured each to control a respective handpiece, so that a plurality of handpieces can function simultaneously”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Grattacasco from a singular handpiece with a power generator to be a plurality of handpieces, each with a respective power generator, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (see MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, such a modification would provide the predictable results of modifying the treatment to meet specific patient therapeutic needs and requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA M ALTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4939. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, David E Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ALYSSA M ALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796