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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 13 July 2026. As per the amendment: claims 1-9 and 11-16 have been cancelled, claim 10 has been amended, and claims 17-24 have been newly added. Thus, claims 10 and 17-24 are presently pending and under examination.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the previous claim objections cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 14 January 2026.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 1, 4, and 8 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 14 January 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that “means of monitoring” and “one laser beam inhibition means” are not indefinite since they are well known to the person of ordinary skill in the art is lacking evidence. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Applicant is requested to provide evidence that these means would known by one skilled in the art which would need a correspondence between the structure and the means as recited, including the relevant functions.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10 of Remarks, filed 13 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey in various combinations with Minamoto et al. (US 2006/0195166 A1), hereinafter "Minamoto" (claims 2-3); Gosse et al. (US 2009/0143773 A1), hereinafter "Gosse" (claims 4 and 10-11); Adam et al. (US 2007/0217199 A1), hereinafter "Adam" (claims 5-6 and 12-13); Bean et al. (US 2019/0046811 A1), hereinafter "Bean" (claims 7 and 14); Eltorai et al. (US 2020/0030627 A1), hereinafter "Eltorai" (claims 8 and 15); and Elevare Skin, "INTRODUCING the ELEVARE PLUS+ X JEAN WATTS," YouTube, 27 Mar. 2018, hereinafter "ElevareSkin" (claims 9 and 16) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jeon (KR 2020/0053699 A, citations from NPL Translation: Jeon_Translation), hereinafter Jeon.
Jeon teaches a multi-functional beauty device comprising at least one luminous status indicator positioned inside a casing (status indicator LED module 420, [0053] “a status indicator LED module (420) is mounted on the outer surface of the main PCB board (400), that is, on the surface facing the inner surface of the housing (100). The status indicator LED module (420) distinguishes and displays what operation the device is currently performing by color, and for this purpose, a plurality of LEDs are provided on the outer surface of each main PCB board (400)”), wherein the casing further comprises at least one light guide made of translucent material (translucent transparent film 110) and encircling a section over a corresponding angle of at least 180° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing (view Figures 1-2 and 4), thereby permitting said at least one status indicator of the device to be externally visible ([0043] “A translucent transparent film (110) is attached to the top of the housing (100) and the upper side of the housing (100) connected to the top, so that light emitted from a status indicator LED module (420) mounted on the main PCB board (400) inside can be transmitted to the outside. Accordingly, the user can check which mode the device is currently operating in by using the color of light emitted from the top and side top of the housing (100)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey and Gosse to incorporate the teachings of Jeon to have at least one luminous status indicator positioned inside a casing, wherein the casing further comprises at least one light guide made of translucent material and encircling a section over a corresponding angle of at least 180° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing, thereby permitting said at least one status indicator of the device to be externally visible, as these prior art references are directed to skincare devices. One would be motivated to do this so the user may check which mode of the device is currently operating on easily, as recognized by Jeon ([0043]).
Therefore, claims 10 and 19 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C 103, as described in detail below.
No specific additional arguments were present with previous 35 U.S.C 103 rejections of the limitations of claims 17-19 and 21-24, nor specifically with respect to the previously cited Minamoto, Bean, Eltorai, and ElevareSkin.
Therefore, claims 17-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as described in detail below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means of monitoring” in claim 10.
“one laser beam inhibition means” in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the limitation “means of monitoring” in claim 10, there is a lack of disclosure of the corresponding structure in the specification. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the means of monitoring to be any element/structure that can controlling at least one laser beam inhibitor device.
For limitation “one laser beam inhibition means” in claim 10, there is a lack of disclosure of the corresponding structure in the specification. Therefore, the examiner interprets the laser beam inhibition means to be any element/or structure that stops/inhibits a laser beam.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 10 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.
The claim “means of monitoring” in claim 10 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the specification fails to adequately disclose the structure to perform the claimed function of “controlling at least one laser beam inhibition means as soon as the temperature measured by the pyrometer exceeds a threshold value”. The specification merely describes this function ([0019]) but provides no detail about the specific structure for performing this function. See MPEP 2181 (III), For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the means of monitoring to be any element that is capable of controlling at least one laser beam inhibitor or programming for an inhibition of laser beam.
The claim “one laser beam inhibition means” in claim 10 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the specification fails to adequately disclose the structure to perform the claimed function of “controlling at least one laser beam inhibition means as soon as the temperature measured by the pyrometer exceeds a threshold value”. The specification merely describes this function ([0019]) but provides no detail about the specific structure for performing this function. See MPEP 2181 (III), For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret one laser beam inhibition to be any element/or structure that stops/inhibits a laser beam.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey et al. (US 2012/0197357 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Dewey in view of Gosse et al. (US 2009/0143773 A1), hereinafter Gosse, further in view of Jeon (KR 2020/0053699 A, citations from NPL Translation: Jeon_Translation), hereinafter Jeon.
Regarding claim 10, Dewey discloses a dermatological treatment device (a handheld apparatus 10, [0029] “Generally, embodiments of the invention are directed to a handheld device for use by a non-physician consumer for fractionally resurfacing skin of the consumer during a skin resurfacing dermatological treatment.”) comprising a laser head (tip 26, light outlet 18) capable of firing a laser beam towards a target area of a patient comprising dermal tissues in order to accelerate healing ([0048] “parallel pulses of light energy propagate through the exit window 62 and the light outlet 18 toward the skin surface SS and form a fractional pattern at the skin surface SS to perform a skin resurfacing dermatological treatment.”, view Figure 2, [0029]), at least one fan (fan 56) capable of dissipating the heat released by the laser head ([0018] “the handheld apparatus also includes a fan which causes outside air to be blown through the housing so as to transfer heat away from the laser and keep its temperature within a predefined operating range”), a casing having an elongated shaped having a cigar-like shape that envelopes the device (view Figure 1 and 5: outer casing or outer housing 12), forming at one end a head (tip 26, [0034] “The outer housing 12 further includes a bezel or snout member 24 and a removable tip 26 which are each located at the tip portion 22.”. Figure 1 and 5), made up of a single part ([0036] “The tip 26 is coupled to the snout member 24 in a frictional or snap fit. The tip 26 is generally formed from a translucent plastic material to permit more light to escape and reflect back into the outer housing 12, for purposes explained in further detail below. The tip 26 defines a truncated conical shape, with a pair of rollers 30 mounted at the free end away from the snout member 24”), and comprising an opening (light outlet 18) capable of allowing a beam fired by the laser to pass and comprising an area of contact with the skin ([0048] “parallel pulses of light energy propagate through the exit window 62 and the light outlet 18 toward the skin surface SS and form a fractional pattern at the skin surface SS to perform a skin resurfacing dermatological treatment.”, view Figure 2) said casing comprising several parts assembled together ([0034] “the outer housing 12 includes a handle portion 20 and a tip portion 22 extending above the handle portion 20…The outer housing 12 further includes a bezel or snout member 24 and a removable tip 26 which are each located at the tip portion 22.”).
It should be further noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, since the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipated or obviousness is established (See MPEP 2112.01) and therefore Dewey’s device’s head is able to eliminate the unfavorable characteristic of having a joint between two casing parts passing through the head.
Dewey fails to explicitly disclose at least one pyrometer near the laser head and capable of measuring the temperature of said target area, at least one means of monitoring capable of controlling at least one laser beam inhibition means as soon as said temperature exceeds a threshold value, at least one luminous status indicator positioned inside a casing, wherein the casing further comprises at least one light guide made of translucent material and encircling a section over a corresponding angle of at least 180 transvers to the longitudinal axis of the casing, thereby permitting said at least one status indicator of the device to be externally visible.
However, Gosse discloses at least one pyrometer (pyrometer 712) near the laser head (view Figure 9 and 10: removeable sleeve 80 comprises the lower rigid part 87), and capable of measuring the temperature of said target area ([0112] “Pyrometer (712) is in fact a safety component that monitors skin surface temperature.”), at least one means of monitoring capable of controlling at least one laser beam inhibition means as soon as said temperature exceeds a threshold value ([0112] “It operates to "lock down" or deactivate laser firing if the temperature reaches a preset threshold value. Pyrometer (712) can also be used in a more advanced way within a closed control loop in order to readjust the laser settings.”, [0137] “Responsibility for managing the laser firing is shared by both microcontrollers (111 and 112). The laser may be stopped due to excessive temperature (15) (managed by microcontroller 111) or an emergency stop request (microcontroller 111).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey to incorporate the teachings of Gosse to have at least one pyrometer near the laser head, and capable of measuring the temperature of said target area, at least one means of monitoring capable of controlling at least one laser beam inhibition means as soon as said temperature exceeds a threshold value, as these prior art references are directed to skin phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to prevent burning or damage to the skin, as recognized by Gosse ([0112]).
Dewey and Gosse, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach at least one luminous status indicator positioned inside a casing, wherein the casing further comprises at least one light guide made of translucent material and encircling a section over a corresponding angle of at least 180° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing, thereby permitting said at least one status indicator of the device to be externally visible.
However, Jeon teaches a multi-functional beauty device comprising at least one luminous status indicator positioned inside a casing (status indicator LED module 420, [0053] “a status indicator LED module (420) is mounted on the outer surface of the main PCB board (400), that is, on the surface facing the inner surface of the housing (100). The status indicator LED module (420) distinguishes and displays what operation the device is currently performing by color, and for this purpose, a plurality of LEDs are provided on the outer surface of each main PCB board (400)”), wherein the casing further comprises at least one light guide made of translucent material (translucent transparent film 110) and encircling a section over a corresponding angle of at least 180° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing (view Figures 1-2 and 4), thereby permitting said at least one status indicator of the device to be externally visible ([0043] “A translucent transparent film (110) is attached to the top of the housing (100) and the upper side of the housing (100) connected to the top, so that light emitted from a status indicator LED module (420) mounted on the main PCB board (400) inside can be transmitted to the outside. Accordingly, the user can check which mode the device is currently operating in by using the color of light emitted from the top and side top of the housing (100)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey and Gosse to incorporate the teachings of Jeon to have at least one luminous status indicator positioned inside a casing, wherein the casing further comprises at least one light guide made of translucent material and encircling a section over a corresponding angle of at least 180° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing, thereby permitting said at least one status indicator of the device to be externally visible, as these prior art references are directed to skincare devices. One would be motivated to do this so the user may check which mode of the device is currently operating on easily, as recognized by Jeon ([0043]).
Regarding claim 19, Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon teaches the device according to claim 10 (as shown above). Dewey and Jeon, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the casing further comprises a measurement window for a pyrometer, said window being set back from the exterior surface of the casing , recessed into the casing itself and/or surrounded by a protruding ring.
However, Goose teaches a device that assists in skin wound healing using a laser beam wherein the casing further comprises a measurement window (a transparent optical window 713) for a pyrometer (pyrometer 712), said window being set back from the exterior surface of the casing, recessed into the casing itself (view Figure 10: the dermatological treatment device 70 is encompassed by a sleeve 80, [0126] “a removable sterile sleeve (80) designed to contain the device and isolate it from the external environment. This sleeve can be understood as a sterile casing in which the device is placed in order to ensure that the area in which the device is used remains sterile. Advantageously, removable sleeve (80) is designed not to interfere with the laser beam. For this purpose the device shall have a window that is transparent to the predefined wavelengths, in order to allow a beam whose wavelength is within the range of preset wavelengths to pass through. Removable sleeve (80) is further designed not to interfere with pyrometer (712) or RFID reader (711) operation.”, [0129]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey in view of Jeon to incorporate the teachings of Goose to have the casing further comprise a measurement window for a pyrometer, said window being set back from the exterior surface of the casing, recessed into the casing itself and/or surrounded by a protruding ring, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to skin phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this as the pyrometer and measurement window can be protected from the external environment and be sterile without interfering with the devices functions, as recognized by Goose ([0126]-[0127]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Minamoto et al. (US 2006/0195166 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Minamoto.
Regarding claim 17, Dewey in view of Gosse on view of Jeon the device according to claim 10 (as shown above). Dewey further discloses the device further comprises an air inlet grille (inlet vent grills 28) and an air outlet grille (outlet vent grill 34).
Although, Dewey discloses that “the inlet vent grills 28 may be formed on the outer housing 12” and that “the handle portion 20 of the outer housing 12 includes at least one outlet vent grill 34” ([0035]), Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon, alone or in combination, fails to explicitly teach that the air inlet grille and the air outlet grille are part of and made from the same material as the casing itself.
However, Minamoto teaches a skin irradiation device for treating the skin according to dermatological procedure ([0002]) wherein an air inlet grille (air inlet ports 34b) and an air outlet grille (air outlet ports 34a) which are part of and made from the same material as the casing itself ([0047] “casing 20 has air outlet ports 34a defined in an upper wall thereof remote from filter unit 17 in alignment with the cooling fans, respectively, and slit-like air inlet ports 34b defined in the side walls of casing 20.”, emphasis added) Since, Minamoto teaches that the air outlet/inlet ports are “defined in” the casing itself as observed from Figure 2 and Figure 5 it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to determine that these air inlet/outlet are part of and made from the same material as the casing itself.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey’s air inlet/outlet grille to incorporate the teachings of Minamoto to have the air inlet and air outlet grille to be part of and made from the same material as the casing itself, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to skin therapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to reduce cost of extra materials.
Regarding claim 18, Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon further in view of Minamoto teaches the device according to claim 17 (as shown above). Dewey further discloses wherein the air inlet grille is positioned near the end in the part forming the head (view Figures 1 and 5, the inlet vent grills 28 are located near the tip 26) and the air outlet grille is positioned near the other end of the casing opposite the head (view Figure 1 and 6, the outlet vent grill 34 is located opposite to the inlet grills 28).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Carden (US 2024/0108535 A1), hereinafter Carden.
Regarding claim 20, Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon teaches the device according to claim 10 (as shown above). Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the light guide made of translucent material encircles a section over a corresponding angle of at least 300° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing.
However, Carden teaches wherein the light guide made of translucent material encircles a section over a corresponding angle of at least 300° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing ([0032] “The current light intensity may be displayed by light intensity indicators 124 which, in embodiments shown, shows light intensity from 25 to 100%.”, [0035] “Light intensity indicators 128 may indicate the light frequency which may be generally categorised as red or infrared as shown (or 660 nm and 850 nm in embodiments).”, view Figure 2: 124 and 128 encircle the device at an angle of 360°).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon to incorporate Carden to have the light guide made of translucent material encircles a section over a corresponding angle of at least 300° transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing ,as these prior art references are directed to skin care devices. One would be motivated to do this to allow better visual indication for the user to determine status of the device.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Adam et al. (US 2007/0217199 A1), hereinafter Adam.
Regarding claim 21, Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon teaches the device according to claim 10 (as shown above). Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon, alone or in combination, fail to teach where the light guide is positioned between the part forming the head and the rest of the casing.
However, Adam teaches skin treatment devices that use light/radiation to provide a dermatological treatment to the skin of a user ([0002]) where the light guide is positioned between the part forming the head and the rest of the casing (view Figure 4 and 8, [0066] “the outer shell 124 has two treatment guides 174, 176 that extend from the angled tip 102 (starting approximately at the rounded peripheral edges around the angled tip 102 and extending downwards parallel to the longitudinal axis of the dermal apparatus 100 and/or optical tube 162.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon to incorporate the teachings of Adam to have the light guide positioned between the part forming the head and the rest of the casing, as these prior art references are directed to skin phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to provide a visual output to the user about the operation of the device and the position of the head, as recognized by Adam ([0066]).
Additionally, Examiner would like to note that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light guide positioned between the part forming the head and the rest of the casing, to allow for easier viewing by the user, and since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts was a matter of choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious and does not change the functionality of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1. C. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Additionally, the present disclosure has no criticality for having the light guide positioned between the part forming the head and the rest of the casing.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Bean et al. (US 2019/0046811 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bean.
Regarding claim 22, Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon teaches the device according to claim 10 (as shown above). Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon, alone or in combination, fail to teach the device further comprising an access panel to programming port(s).
However, Bean teaches a portable, miniature laser device that can be used for specific applications such as reducing warts, skin rashes, skin cancers, and wound healing (Abstract) wherein the casing comprising an access panel (port cover 7) to programming port(s) ([0091] “Using the port behind port cover 7, the user can plug in a USB cord or similar to make an electrical and/or programming connection to laser system 1. This connection allows the user to charge the laser system batteries and program the device as needed.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon to incorporate the teachings of Bean to have an access panel to programming port, as these prior art references are directed to laser therapy device for the skin. One would be motivated to do this to cover the port and protect it from water and particle egress, as recognized by Bean ([0069]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Eltorai et al. (US 2020/0030627 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Eltorai.
Regarding claim 23, Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon teaches the device according to claim 10 (as shown above). Dewey further discloses the device further comprising at least one laser firing button (power button 38, operational mode selection button 40,[0038] “The power button 38 is configured to control the power supply of the handheld apparatus as well as communicate selected operational modes to the consumer, as explained in further detail below. The operational mode selection button 40 is configured to toggle the handheld apparatus 10 between one or more operational modes. In a preferred embodiment, three operational modes are provided: high intensity treatment, medium intensity treatment, and low intensity treatment”). Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon, alone or in combination, fails to explicitly teach wherein said at least one button forms a protuberance relative to the surface of the casing .
However, Eltorai teaches a phototherapy device used for acne and acne scar treatment ([0001]) wherein the device further comprises at least one laser firing button, wherein said at least one button forms a protuberance relative to the surface of the casing ([0035] “The upper most surface 234 can have a protruding button 222 or can be flexible so that a user can interface with a button disposed therein. The button 222 can be used to operate the light emitter 212”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon to incorporate the teachings of Eltorai to have at least one button form a protuberance relative to the surface of the casing, as these prior art references are directed to skin phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this so that a user may easily access and interact with a control button.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Elevare Skin. “INTRODUCING the ELEVARE PLUS+ X JEAN WATTS.” YouTube, 27 Mar. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWsiqyR3l8k., hereinafter ElevareSkin (previously cited).
Regarding claim 24, Dewey in view of Gosse in view of Jeon teaches the casing according to claim 10 (as shown above). Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein at least one button of the casing has a textured surface.
However, ElevareSkin teaches a skin rejuvenation system using light therapy wherein at least one button of the casing has a textured surface (Time Stamp: 0:19 and 0:28, view Figure 1 below, shows the button with an engraved power button which has a different texture due to the indentations).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dewey, Gosse, and Jeon to incorporate the teachings of ElevareSkin to have at least one button of the casing have a textured surface, as these prior art references are directed to skin phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this so that a user is able to easily locate and identify the button.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Snippet from ElevareSkin at Time Stamp - 0:28, arrow points to the indentation/texture
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights