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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/01/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following feature as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Figure 3 (see DRW filed on 03/31/2026) fails to show the “regeneration of the hair follicles”, as described in Applicant’s specification page. 11, lines 8-9. Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill looking at FIG. 3 would not be able to determine the location of the hair follicles or their regeneration.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In re claim 8, “providing one more of tips configured to be mounted” should read “providing one or more tips configured to be mounted…”.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9 and 12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazic et al. (US 2021/0361970), in view of Laurent (US 2008/0125835), in view of Shen et al. (Shen Y, Sun J, Zhu Y, et al. Effect of fractional laser alone or in combination on alopecia areata: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22:1528-1535. doi:10.1111/jocd.15630).
In re claim 1, Kazic discloses a method for promoting hair growth [0002] comprising:
providing a laser (Fig. 1: 110; [0134]: “ER:YAG”) configured for generating a non-ablative laser beam having a wavelength [0133, 0134];
providing a handpiece connected to the laser (all elements to the left of 110) configured to receive the non-ablative laser beam, and deliver a fractional pattern of non-ablative laser beams to a treatment site on a person’s scalp [0087-0088];
providing controlling parameters of the non-ablative laser beam to apply the hair ([0134]: “the combination of parameters must be chosen”);
activating, the laser for
a predetermined treatment time ([0134]: “overall pulse sequence duration”), at
a predetermined pulse rate ([0134]: “pulse separation”), and
a predetermined pulse duration ([0134]: “pulse duration”);
delivering, by the handpiece, the non-ablative laser to the treatment site on the person’s scalp [0133-0134]; and
deactivating, the laser (it is apparent that the laser module is deactivated as the pulse sequence has a specific duration [0134]).
Kazic does not disclose
wherein the laser is controlled by a controller
providing a laser configured to generating a non-ablative laser beam having a wavelength of 1565 nm;
Laurent discloses an analogous method for hair treatment (FIG. 2A, FIG. 2B) comprising a handpiece (100) and a laser module (142) configured to generate and control a non-ablative laser beam ([0027]: any of L1, L2 or L3). Laurent further discloses the handpiece comprising a controller ([0047]: “internal microcontroller”) adapted for controlling the parameters of the non-ablative laser beam ([0047]: “…intensities, pulse intervals and time durations”). Laurent additionally discloses the controller being responsible for both activating and deactivating the laser module ([0047]: Examiner notes that the microcontroller includes a laser control circuit which controls “duty cycles” [0031] which involve cycling between powering the laser on and off.)
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 Kazic to provide a controller, as taught by Laurent. One would have been motivated to make this modification because using a controller can help reduce both current drain and power dissipation, extending the battery life of a device (Laurent, [0047]). Accordingly, such a modification would yield a controller “adapted for controlling parameters of the non-ablative laser beam to apply the hair”.
Regarding providing a wavelength “of 1565 nm”, Shen discloses an overview of ten randomized control trials (pg. 1529, “3.2 Description of Included Studies”) focused on treating patients with alopecia areata (abstract). Shen further discloses several different types of lasers being used across the ten randomized control trials including: a 10600 nm ultra-pulsed fractional CO2 laser, a 1565 nm non-ablative fractional laser, and a 1550 nm non-ablative fractional laser (pg. 1529, “3.2 Description of Included Studies”).
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 the proposed combination, to include providing a laser configured for generating a non-ablative laser beam having a wavelength of 1565 nm, as taught by Shen. One would have been motivated to make this modification because both the laser of the proposed combination and 1565 nm laser taught by Shen are functionally equivalent, that is, they both generate non-ablative laser beams for the purpose of promoting hair growth. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose a type of laser that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “providing a laser configured for generating a non-ablative laser beam having a wavelength of 1565”.
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Kazic) further comprises providing a scanner (144) configured to
define at least one of size and shape of a fractional pattern of non-ablative laser beams ([0087]: “laser beam strips form a rectangular cross section corresponding to the shape of the mirror segments 144”) and
delivering to the treatment site the fractional pattern of non-ablative laser beams comprising a plurality of spaced-apart micro-beams [0087-0088] *forming a certain shape that defines the treatment site (FIG. 4 shows an example treatment site shape) .
*Examiner notes that although the output means is responsible for dictating the shape of the treatment site, the scanner is responsible for delivering the fractional pattern of non-ablative laser beams that comprise a plurality of spaced apart microbeams as described in [0087-0088]. In other words, the “shape that defines the treatment site” would not be possible without the scanner.
In re claim 5, the proposed combination does not yield, wherein the plurality of spaced-apart micro-beams forms at least one of the following shapes: hexagon, doughnut, circle, square, horizontal rectangle, vertical rectangle, horizontal line, and vertical line.
Kazic further discloses another exemplary embodiment of the handpiece (FIG. 7) wherein the plurality of spaced-apart micro beams (facilitated by output means 760) form a circular shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the proposed combination to further include wherein the plurality of spaced-apart micro-beams forms at least one of the following shapes: hexagon, doughnut, circle, square, horizontal rectangle, vertical rectangle, horizontal line, and vertical line, as taught by the exemplary embodiment of Kazic. One would have been motivated to make this modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to modify the shape to best meet their unique needs. This is further supported by Kazic [0089] which discusses potential reasons to adjust the output means (which is responsible for facilitating the shape of the plurality of spaced part microbeams) including comfort level and scalp shape.
In re claim 6, regarding the limitation “wherein the plurality of spaced apart micro-beams forms a circular shape having a diameter of up to 18 mm” it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the plurality of spaced apart micro-beams form a circular shape having a diameter of up to 18mm, 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. This is further supported by Kazic which discloses that an output means may be adapted such that the laser light is output with a specific diameter (Kazic, [0091]).
In re claim 7, regarding the limitations “wherein the fractional pattern of non-ablative laser beams is at least one of: a density in a range of 50 to 500 micro-beams per cm2; or an energy between 10-35 mJ per each micro-beam.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have wherein the fractional pattern of non-ablative laser is at least one of: a density a range of 50 to 500 micro-beams per cm2; or an energy between 10-35 mJ per each micro-beam, 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.
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Kazic) further comprising providing one more of tips (160) configured to be mounted at a distal end (left most end of 100) of the handpiece and the tips configured for at least one of the following:
defining the shape of the treatment site (FIG. 1; output means define target area; FIG. 4 shows an example treatment site shape);
forming a spacer between a laser output (120) of the handpiece and the treatment site (FIG. 1)
moving grown hair aside for treatment [0090]; or
conforming to topography of the treatment site ([0088]: “adapted to spherical shape of scalp”).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination does not yield further comprising providing one more of cooling devices configured to maintain an optimal temperature of the handpiece or/and a tip mounted on a distal end of the handpiece.
Laurent further discloses the handpiece optionally including one or more cooling mechanisms configured to cool a user of the handpiece or the handpiece itself [0049].
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 the proposed combination to include providing one or more cooling devices configured to maintain an optimal temperature of the handpiece, as taught by Laurent. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent the handpiece from overheating.
In re claim 12, see above (In re claim 1).
The proposed combination also yields
a system (Kazic, abstract)
non-transitory computer readable medium programmed with computer readable code that upon execution by the controller causes the controller to (Laurent, [0047-0048]):
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 4).
In re claim 16, see above (In re claim 5).
In re claim 17, see above (In re claim 7).
In re claim 18, see above (In re claim 8).
In re claim 19, see above (In re claim 9).
Claims 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazic et al. (US 2021/0361970), in view of Laurent (US 2008/0125835), in view of Shen et al. (Shen Y, Sun J, Zhu Y, et al. Effect of fractional laser alone or in combination on alopecia areata: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22:1528-1535. doi:10.1111/jocd.15630), in view of Herzog et al. (US 2023/0404667).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination does not yield
providing temperature sensors; and
automatically activating, by the controller, the one or more cooling devices if at least one of the following occurs:
the energy level is above a predetermined energy;
the density level is above a predetermined density; and
a temperature of the handpiece, a tip and/or the treatment site is above a predetermined temperature, based on the temperature sensors.
Herzog discloses a system for laser treatment that comprises a handpiece (FIGURE 1: 104; [0036]), a laser module (112), a control system (110) and a cooling system (106). Herzog further discloses the system having thermal temperature sensors (116) for measuring a temperature of a patient’s treatment site [0083]. Herzog additionally discloses the measured temperature being used by the cooling system to ensure that the treatment site does not exceed a predetermined allowable skin temperature [0083]. Herzog discloses activating the cooling system if it is determined that the temperature of the treatment site has exceeded the allowable skin temperature [0083].
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 the proposed combination to include providing temperature sensors; and automatically activating, by the controller, the one or more cooling devices if at least one of the following occurs: the energy level is above a predetermined energy; the density level is above a predetermined density; and a temperature of the handpiece, a tip and/or the treatment site is above a predetermined temperature, based on the temperature sensors, as taught by Herzog. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent a patient’s skin from both overheating and skin damage.
In re claim 11, the proposed combination does not yield further comprising providing a registration process configured to register location(s) of treatment sites during a treatment session.
Herzog further discloses the control system comprising a laser pre-scan module (FIG. 2: 210). Herzog discloses using the laser pre-scan module to identify/register treatment site locations during a laser treatment session [0052].
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 the proposed combination to include providing a registration module configured to register location(s) of treatment sites during a treatment session, as taught by Herzog. One would have been motivated to make this modification because using a registration module would allow an operator to ensure that all target areas receive proper treatment (Herzog, [0052]).
In re claim 20, see above (In re claim 9, In re claim 10).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazic et al. (US 2021/0361970), in view of Laurent (US 2008/0125835), in view of Shen et al. (Shen Y, Sun J, Zhu Y, et al. Effect of fractional laser alone or in combination on alopecia areata: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22:1528-1535. doi:10.1111/jocd.15630), in view of Hwang et al. (KR 100839023).
In re claim 21, the proposed combination does not yield wherein providing the laser comprises providing an erbium glass fiber laser.
Hwang discloses an analogous method for promoting hair growth (pg. 6, paragraph 2, lines 14-18), that involves applying fractional laser pulses to a patient’s scalp using a handheld device (pg. 6, paragraph 2, lines 14-18; FIG. 1). As disclosed by Hwang, the fractional laser pulses are generated by a light pulse generating unit which can be comprised of one or more of the following: a diode laser, a diode-pumped solid state laser, an ER (erbium): YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) laser, a Nd (neodymium): YAG laser, an ER glass laser, an argon ion laser, a helium laser, a carbon dioxide laser, an excimer laser, a fiber laser, a ruby laser and a frequency multiplied laser (pg. 6, paragraph 2, lines 9-14).
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 the proposed combination to include wherein providing the laser comprises providing an erbium glass fiber laser, as taught by Hwang. One would have been motivated to make this modification because an erbium glass fiber laser (ER glass laser) is a known alternative to the ER:YAG laser used in the proposed combination (Hwang: pg. 6, paragraph 2, lines 9-14; Kazic: [0134]: “ER:YAG”).
In re claim 22, see above (In re claim 21).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights