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 Preliminary Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 14 Apr 2024. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-15 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the International Searching Authority have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Treatment applier 20 (page 5, line 3)
Optical displacement sensor 201 (page 5, line 14)
Mechanical displacement sensor 202 (page 5, line 19)
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. 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
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: Lines 5-7 should read:
a mapping unit configured to obtain a map of a skin area to be treated, and obtain a reference position on a boundary or the map; and
a processor configured to:
Claim 5: “mappping” in line 2 should read “mapping”
Claim 10: a colon should be added after “configured to” in line 2
Claim 12:
“step” in line 3 should read “steps”
Line 6 should be omitted
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
“a treatment applier” (line 3) – specification page 5, lines 3-9 (optical treatment window)
“a mapping unit” (line 5) – specification page 5, lines 13-15 (displacement sensor), 22-28 (camera)
“a user interface unit” (line 13) – specification page 6, lines 8-9 (LED); page 9, lines 7-16 (transceivers, input and output components)
Claim 2: “imaging unit” – specification page 5, line 23; page 10, lines 22-23 (camera)
Claim 12:
“a treatment applier” (line 2) – specification page 5, lines 3-9 (optical treatment window)
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.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Determination as to whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility is a stepwise process (MPEP 2016).
Step 1: Does the claim fall within a statutory category of invention?
Claims 1-11 recite a machine (apparatus), and claims 12-14 recite a process (method), which are within the four statutory categories. Therefore, claims 1-14 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Claim 15 recites a computer program product, which is not within any of the statutory categories per MPEP 2106.03(I). Because the claim does not specify that the computer readable medium is non-transitory, the claim can be interpreted such that the medium is a transitory form of signal transmission, which is not directed to any statutory category. Therefore claim 15 is not directed to patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 12 is directed to obtaining a map of a skin area to be treated; obtaining a reference position on a boundary of the map; dividing an area of the map into a plurality of compartments which each represent a respective one of a plurality of positions of the working area of the treatment applier on the skin area to be treated required for uniform exposure of the skin to the skin treatment;
registering contact of the treatment applier in a position within the skin area to be treated corresponding with the reference position; and guiding the user through the compartments in the map based on a measured displacement of the treatment applier relative to the reference position. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus that carries out the same steps recited in claim 12, and claim 15 is directed to a computer program product that causes a processor to perform the method of claim 12.
The limitations of dividing an area of the map into compartments, registering contact of the treatment applier, and guiding the user, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are merely mental processes, because these steps are akin to having a doctor or other human actor performing these operations with pen and paper. For example, “dividing an area of the map into a plurality of compartments which each represent a respective one of a plurality of positions of the working area of the treatment applier on the skin area to be treated required for uniform exposure of the skin area to the skin treatment encompasses nothing more than a human actor mentally evaluating the map and deciding where each compartment should be.
The limitations of “obtaining a map of a skin area to be treated” and “obtaining a reference position on a boundary of the map” encompasses nothing more than a human actor collecting these pieces of information by hand.
The limitation “guiding the user through the compartments in the map based on a measured displacement of the treatment applier” encompasses nothing more than a human actor drawing out the map on a piece of paper and communicating instructions to the user.
Therefore, claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, and claims 13-15 depend on claim 12. These dependent claims only recite additional features of the analysis described in claims 1 and 12, which may also be performed by a human actor mentally and using a pen and paper. For example, claims 8 and 13 recite “calculating treatment parameters based on at least one of the map and the treatment applier”, which encompasses nothing more than a human actor performing calculations with pen and paper using the collected data.
Therefore, claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitation of “a user interface unit”. Claims 1 and 15 recite the additional limitation of “a processor”. Claim 4 recites the additional limitation of “a memory”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. most generic computers would be known to have these components). Page 8, line 18-page 9, line 16 of the specification describe the processor, memory, and user interface unit at a high level of generality. These generic processor and memory limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 4, and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitation “a mapping unit”, and claim 2 recites the additional limitations “a displacement sensor and/or an imaging unit”, which amounts to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore the claimed generic mapping imaging elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As described above, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-15 only recite other limitations of the methods described in claims 1 and 12, which may be done mentally by a human actor and/or with a pen and paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above with respect to the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), the additional elements of using computer components to perform the process steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer elements. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation of “a user interface unit”. Claims 1 and 15 recite the additional limitation of “a processor”. Claim 4 recites the additional limitation of “a memory”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. most generic computers would be known to have these components). Page 8, line 18-page 9, line 16 of the specification describes the processor, memory, and user interface, at a high level of generality, and only provides conventional, well-known computing functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitation “a mapping unit”, and claim 2 recites the additional limitations “a displacement sensor and/or an imaging unit”. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), the additional element of a mapping unit to collect data amounts to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering. This pre-solution activity of data gathering using a displacement sensor and/or a camera is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of guided light treatment technology. For example, see Chan et al. (US 20070093797 A1), which describes known methods of guided light treatment. Therefore, the claimed generic mapping unit and computer processing elements are all well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of guided light treatment technology.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan et al. (US 20070093797 A1), hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 1, Chan discloses an apparatus for guiding a user during a skin treatment process (Fig. 1, paragraph [0039], handpiece 100) comprising:
a treatment applier having a working area via which the skin treatment is applied to a user's skin when the treatment applier contacts the skin (Fig. 1, paragraph [0039], contact plate 139; Fig. 2A, paragraph [0072], contact plate 239); and
a mapping unit configured to obtain a map of a skin area to be treated (Fig. 1, paragraph [0040], positional sensor 180), and to obtain a reference position on a boundary of the map (paragraph [0049], "The magnetic positional sensor can comprise three magnetic sensor elements 1284A-C that can be located at a reference point and are arranged to span three-dimensional space"; paragraph [0074], "[0074] To enhance the ability of the optical positional sensor 280 to read the positional parameters of the handpiece 200, a contrast enhancing agent 290 can be applied onto or into the skin 250"); and
a processor (Fig. 1, paragraph [0039], controller 115; Fig. 2A, paragraph [0058], controller 215) configured to:
divide an area of the map into a plurality of compartments which each represent a respective one of a plurality of positions of the working area of the treatment applier on the skin area to be treated required for uniform exposure of the skin area to the skin treatment (Figs. 2C, 3A-3C, paragraph [0082], treatment region 357; paragraph [0087], "the region sensed by the dosage evaluation sensor is coincident with the region measured by the positional sensor and the region being treated"; paragraph [0070], "the algorithm maintains a uniform distribution of treatment zones within the treatment region");
register contact of the treatment applier (paragraph [0059], "the positional sensor 280 measures the position of the handpiece relative to the surface of the skin 250") in a position within the skin area to be treated corresponding with the reference position in the map (paragraph [0064], "The positional sensor 280 can be used to measure the location within the treatment region of the tissue response that is measured by the dosage evaluation sensor 260"); and
guide the user, via a user interface unit (paragraph [0064], monitor), through the compartments in the map based on a measured displacement of the treatment applier relative to the reference position (paragraph [0064], "a treatment status map is displayed on a monitor (not shown) for the user or the patient to observe ... The user can take the information on this map to make treatment uniform over the entire treatment region").
Regarding claim 2, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the mapping unit comprises a displacement sensor (Fig. 12, paragraph [0049], magnetic positional sensor 1280; Fig. 4, paragraph [0089], accelerometers 480 and 481) and/or an imaging unit (paragraph [0059], "Examples of optical positional sensors 280 include an optical mouse chip (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, Calif.), a CCD camera, or an optical sensor array of at least two sensor elements").
Regarding claim 3, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the displacement sensor is an optical sensor (paragraphs [0048], [0059], optical positional sensor) or a mechanical sensor (paragraph [0047], mechanical mouse or roller wheel).
Regarding claim 4, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as explained above. Chan further discloses a memory (paragraph [0042], "a memory that stores a computer program") for storing information relating to the map, the information comprising at least one of an area of the map (paragraph [0064], "a map can display which parts of the treatment region have been treated") and the reference position (paragraph [0051], "The location of and direction of the treatment beam(s) emitted from the handpiece relative to the reference coordinate system is then measured"; paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0092]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 5, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the mapping unit is configured to obtain the map via an imaging unit (paragraph [0059], "Examples of optical positional sensors 280 include an optical mouse chip (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, Calif.), a CCD camera, or an optical sensor array of at least two sensor elements").
Regarding claim 6, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as explained above. Chan further discloses a light source (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0039], [0043]-[0045], electromagnetic source 110; Fig. 2A, paragraphs [0058], [0067], laser source 210), and wherein the treatment applier is adapted to apply a light-based treatment to the skin area (paragraph [0039], "The electromagnetic source 110 generates electromagnetic energy 130 that treats the skin. ... An optional contact plate 139 that is mechanically coupled to the handpiece 100 may be used to make good electrical or optical contact with the skin 150 to enhance controlled delivery of the electromagnetic energy 130").
Regarding claim 7, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 6, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the light source comprises a laser (paragraphs [0045], [0056], [0058], [0067]).
Regarding claim 8, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the processor is further configured to calculate treatment parameters based on at least one of the map and the treatment applier (paragraph [0041], "the feedback loops comprising the controller 115 and/or the scanner control 125 in combination with the positional sensor 180 and/or the dosage evaluation sensor 160 can be used to provide automated control of treatment parameters"; paragraph [0060], "The positional sensor 280 and the dosage evaluation sensor 260 communicate with the controller 215. In response to the measurements, the controller 215 adjusts the optical treatment parameters in real time to materially affect the photothermal treatment"; paragraph [0063], "the treatment pattern, treatment density, treatment intensity, and other treatment parameters may not be predefined, but may be defined through an automated response to measured positional parameters").
Regarding claim 9, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 8, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the treatment parameters comprise at least one of a number of applied treatments (paragraph [0041], treatment zone pattern), an intensity of an applied treatment (paragraph [0041], "treatment power, ... spot size, pulse width, pulse energy, pulse timing, pulse frequency, laser power, laser wavelength"), a position of a previously treated compartment (paragraph [0064], "the system can be configured to automatically reduce or disable treatment in the regions that have already been adequately treated as the user continues to move the handpiece over the treatment region"; paragraph [0111], "measures the percentage of skin that had been treated prior to the current pass of the handpiece"), a position of at least one untreated compartment (paragraph [0064], "the system can be configured to automatically reduce or disable treatment in the regions that have already been adequately treated as the user continues to move the handpiece over the treatment region"), and a speed of the treatment applier (paragraphs [0060], [0063] velocity of the handpiece).
Regarding claim 11, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the user interface unit comprises a visual indicator (paragraph [0064], "a treatment status map is displayed on a monitor (not shown) for the user or the patient to observe").
Regarding claim 12, Chan discloses a computer-implemented method of guiding a user during skin treatment by means of a treatment applier having a working area via which the skin treatment is applied to a user's skin when the treatment applier contacts the skin (Fig. 1, paragraph [0039], contact plate 139; Fig. 2A, paragraph [0072], contact plate 239), the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining a map of a skin area to be treated (paragraph [0064], "a treatment status map is displayed on a monitor (not shown) for the user or the patient to observe. The positional sensor 280 can be used to measure the location within the treatment region of the tissue response that is measured by the dosage evaluation sensor 260");
obtaining a reference position on a boundary of the map (paragraph [0049], "The magnetic positional sensor can comprise three magnetic sensor elements 1284A-C that can be located at a reference point and are arranged to span three-dimensional space"; paragraph [0074], "[0074] To enhance the ability of the optical positional sensor 280 to read the positional parameters of the handpiece 200, a contrast enhancing agent 290 can be applied onto or into the skin 250");
dividing an area of the map into a plurality of compartments which each represent a respective one of a plurality of positions of the working area of the treatment applier on the skin area to be treated required for uniform exposure of the skin to the skin treatment (Figs. 2C, 3A-3C, paragraph [0082], treatment region 357; paragraph [0087], "the region sensed by the dosage evaluation sensor is coincident with the region measured by the positional sensor and the region being treated"; paragraph [0070], "the algorithm maintains a uniform distribution of treatment zones within the treatment region");
registering contact of the treatment applier in a position within the skin area to be treated corresponding with the reference position (paragraph [0064], "The positional sensor 280 can be used to measure the location within the treatment region of the tissue response that is measured by the dosage evaluation sensor 260"); and
guiding the user through the compartments in the map based on a measured displacement of the treatment applier relative to the reference position (paragraph [0064], "a treatment status map is displayed on a monitor (not shown) for the user or the patient to observe ... The user can take the information on this map to make treatment uniform over the entire treatment region").
Regarding claim 13, Chan discloses the method of claim 12, as explained above. Chan further discloses calculating treatment parameters based on at least one of the map and the treatment applier (paragraph [0041], "the feedback loops comprising the controller 115 and/or the scanner control 125 in combination with the positional sensor 180 and/or the dosage evaluation sensor 160 can be used to provide automated control of treatment parameters"; paragraph [0060], "The positional sensor 280 and the dosage evaluation sensor 260 communicate with the controller 215. In response to the measurements, the controller 215 adjusts the optical treatment parameters in real time to materially affect the photothermal treatment").
Regarding claim 14, Chan discloses the method of claim 12, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the skin treatment is based on treatment using light (paragraph [0039], "The electromagnetic source 110 generates electromagnetic energy 130 that treats the skin. ... An optional contact plate 139 that is mechanically coupled to the handpiece 100 may be used to make good electrical or optical contact with the skin 150 to enhance controlled delivery of the electromagnetic energy 130").
Regarding claim 15, Chan discloses the method of claim 12, as explained above. Chan further discloses a computer program product, which comprises a computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein, the computer readable code being configured such that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor, the processor is caused to perform the method of claim 12 (paragraph [0042], memory that stores a computer program).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20070093797 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of Gurovich et al. (US 20160045762 A1), hereinafter Gurovich.
Regarding claim 10, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as explained above. Chan further discloses that the processor is configured to determine, while guiding the user through the compartments, that a contact is lost between the treatment applier and the skin (paragraph [0094], "Absolute or relative measurements of velocity, acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration are useful for evaluating whether the handpiece has been dropped or has suddenly slipped in an uncontrolled way").
Chan does not explicitly disclose that the processor is configured to obtain a position of a last treated compartment; and indicate to the user, via the user interface unit, a position of a next compartment to be treated.
However, Gurovich teaches a device for treating a skin surface (Abstract) comprising a processor (paragraph [0066], processor 22) configured to:
determine, while guiding the user through the compartments, that a contact is lost between the treatment applier and the skin (paragraph [0068], "User control 18 may include a proximity or contact sensor ... that senses when treatment head 26 is placed near or in contact with a skin surface");
obtain a position of a last treated compartment (paragraph [0044], "The controller may be configured to prevent repeated application of the treatment to a position that had previously been treated. For example, if the current position is displaced by less than a predetermined threshold distance from a previously treated position, application of the treatment may completely or partially interrupted. Treatment may be resumed when the treatment head is displaced to beyond the threshold distance."); and
indicate to the user, via the user interface unit, a position of a next compartment to be treated (paragraph [0083], "generation of an alert may be indicated when the device has … resumed or started application of the treatment").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan with the teachings of Gurovich so that the processor is configured to obtain a position of a last treated compartment; and indicate to the user, via the user interface unit, a position of a next compartment to be treated, because doing so prevents unintentional repeated treatment of a previously treated region, thus avoiding injury to the skin (Gurovich, paragraph [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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 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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796