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 .
Priority
The application is a National Stage entry of PCT/FI2022/050850 (20 December 2022) which designated the U.S. and claims priority to FI 20216342 (23 December 2021). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Formal Matters
Applicant’s preliminary amendments filed 21 June 2024 are acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites the limitation “(B)” in line 2. This appears to be a reference numeral that may have been overlooked during the deletion of other reference numerals in the preliminary amendment. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b), Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the wireless connection" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, which does not provide antecedent basis for the recitation of “the wireless connection” in claim 5. Claim 5 recites a “mean for wireless communication”, but this language is broader than the recitation of “the wireless connection” because it is drawn to the means for wireless communication and not the wireless connection itself.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the diameter of the abrasive product” at lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which does not recite a diameter of the abrasive product. Similarly, although lines 5-11 of claim 7 recite diameters and preferred diameters of a backing pad, they do not recite a diameter of the abrasive product.
Applicant is referred to Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (2008). A five member expanded panel of the Board held that "if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite."
Applicant is also referred to Nautilus Inc., v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908-909 (2014) in which the Court held that a claim is indefinite if the specification and prosecution history fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court also held that a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed thereby "appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)), in a manner that avoids "[a] zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims," (citing United Carbon Co., v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942)) (Nautilus 909).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phase “optionally” is used in claims 1, 6, 11, 14, and 16 to add or possibly potentially add components to the claims. In US patent practice, this is properly achieved by adding further dependent claims. The multiple recitations of “optional” additions renders the claims unclear and confusing because there is uncertainty as to whether the recited components should be added or not and whether they are required individually or in combination with other claims reciting optional components. There is a point at which the multiple optional recitations becomes confusing, particularly as claims 6 and 11 are dependent on independent claim 1 and claim 16 is dependent on independent claim 14.
Claim 1 recites “and optionally further comprising a dust extractor suitable for the removal of abrasion skin dust”. In claim 1, is the dust extractor “optional” or does the claim “further comprise” the dust extractor such that the dust extractor is a required component of the device? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear based on the use of both “optionally” and further comprising” in the claim.
In claim 6, is the abrasive product required to be disposable? The optional language is also accompanied by “wherein” language. See MPEP 2111.04. It is unclear from the manner in which claim 6 is written whether the “wherein” claims is required to give meaning and purpose to the disposability of the abrasive product.
In claim 11, are the abrasive particles made of silicone carbide? The optional language is also accompanied by “wherein” language. See MPEP 2111.04. It is unclear from the manner in which claim 11 is written whether the “wherein” claims is required to give meaning and purpose to the composition of the abrasive product. Alternatively, does that recitation encompass a product-by-process limitation that must be considered under those applicable requirements?
In claim 14, are the method steps (c) and (d) required to be repeated at least one more time? It is unclear from the manner in which claim 14 is written whether the “wherein” claims is required to give meaning and purpose to the composition of the repetition of steps (c) and (d).
In claim 16, is the rpm and/or the time of said oscillating motion selected via a wireless connection using a second device? This question is also compounded by the “in particular” recitation in the claim, reciting a Bluetooth standard. It is unclear from the manner in which claim 16 is written whether the “wherein” claims is required to give meaning and purpose to the manner in which the rpm and/or the time of the oscillating motion is selected or preselected by a wireless connection and alternatively whether that wireless connection is required to be a Bluetooth standard.
Compare Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d 1949 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) where the language "containing A, B, and optionally C" was considered acceptable alternative language because there was no ambiguity as to which alternatives are covered by the claim. A similar holding was reached with regard to the term "optionally" in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See also, MPEP 2173.05(h).
Applicant is referred to Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (2008). A five member expanded panel of the Board held that "if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite."
Applicant is also referred to Nautilus Inc., v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908-909 (2014) in which the Court held that a claim is indefinite if the specification and prosecution history fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court also held that a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed thereby "appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)), in a manner that avoids "[a] zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims," (citing United Carbon Co., v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942)) (Nautilus 909).
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected as depending from rejected claims.
Claims 4, 7-11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “1000 to 15000 rpm”, and the claim also recites 2000 to 12000 rpm and 4000 to 8000 rpm, the latter of which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claims 7-11, 13, and 16 similarly have recitations comprising multiple broad/narrow ranges. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “preferably” in claims 4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the preferences may suggest components or ranges, they do not necessary indicate a specific component or range as being definitively inclusive to the device or method and as such, they do not necessarily indicate specific inclusion while also indicating significant variation in the device and method. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the “preferably” language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See also, MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims 2, 5-7, 11-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “in particular” in claims 2, 5-7, 11-13, 15, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the preferences may suggest components or ranges, they do not necessary indicate a specific component or range as being definitively inclusive to the device or method and as such, they do not necessarily indicate specific inclusion while also indicating significant variation in the device and method. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the “in particular” language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See also, MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites a list of preferred diameters for the backing pad. Claim 7 recites multiple “in particular” and multiple “preferentially” embodiments. The first set of these “in particular” and “preferably” recitations are related to a shape (lines 2-4). Line 5 begins with a recitation of “in particular” but then recites a diameter of the backing pad in multiple “preferable” recitations spanning lines 5-15. The recitation of “in particular” in line 5 is drawn to a diameter, which is different physical characteristic than a shape. This difference renders the claim unclear and confusing. There is nothing prior to the “in particular” recitation in line 5 of claim 7 that is drawn to a diameter of the backing pad. This transition also results in additional confusion later in the claim where line 12, also recites “in particular” language. The “and wherein” clause in line 13 is once again related to the diameter of the backing pad and recites “and wherein the diameter of the backing pad does not differ in more than…”, but there is no comparison as to what the “differ” is being compared to. Is the difference being compared between backing pads of comparable sizes as per the multiple alternative preferred embodiments, such that “the backing pad does not differ in more than 4mm” is being compared to the preferential recitation in line 10 of “more preferably 32 to 36 mm”? Or is the “the backing pad does not differ in more than 4mm” being compared to the “smaller than the diameter of the abrasive product” recited in lines 12-13? There is no basis for comparison given that the claim is silent in this regard at lines 13-14.
It is suggested that Applicant separate these different structural requirements into different dependent claims or otherwise clarify the multiple structural requirements in claim 7 so as to avoid confusion among and between the different structural embodiments which recite multiple “and(s)”, multiple “or(s)”, multiple “in particular” embodiments, and multiple “preferred” embodiments. One cannot adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, as currently written.
Applicant is referred to Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (2008). A five member expanded panel of the Board held that "if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite."
Applicant is also referred to Nautilus Inc., v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908-909 (2014) in which the Court held that a claim is indefinite if the specification and prosecution history fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court also held that a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed thereby "appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)), in a manner that avoids "[a] zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims," (citing United Carbon Co., v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942)) (Nautilus 909).
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 1-4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rhodes, US 20060058714 (16 March 2006).
Regarding claim 1, Rhodes teaches a hand-held (Abstract, tool 110), cordless (FIGs 4A-B; ¶39 battery powered) skin abrasion device (Abstract; attachment 200), comprising
a housing portion (¶140, handle 130),
an internal electric drive (¶42, motor 260),
a backing pad (¶52, pad 220), and
an attachable abrasive product (¶52, “exterior surface portion 255 (abrasive surface and backing)”), and
optionally further comprising a dust extractor suitable for the removal of abrasion skin dust (¶27, brush attachment for cleaning skin “such as to remove exfoliated or abraded skin particles after exfoliation, to clean and/or polish the area of the skin”),
wherein said backing pad extends from said housing portion (FIGs 4A-B; ¶52),
said backing pad is configured to be set in an oscillating and/or random orbital or rotating motion by said electric drive (¶43, motor 260 drives eccentric mass 264 which rotates in rhythmic motions producing a vibration; ¶78), and
said attachable abrasive product is attached to said backing pad (¶52, “exterior surface portion 255 (abrasive surface and backing)”), in a mechanical manner (¶60, adhesive, heat bonding, tape, glue) said abrasive product has a laminated structure (FIG 4A; ¶52 pad 220, cushioning layer 261, exterior surface portion 255, abrasive surface and backing, body 265; ¶60, adhesive, heat bonding, tape, glue) with a foam core layer (¶52, cushioning layer 261; ¶96, sponge material) and a fabric or film layer (¶96, fabrics, used in conjunction with porous (sponge) material) which is adhered (¶60, adhesive, heat bonding, tape, glue) to an upper side of said foam core layer (¶52, cushioning layer 261; ¶96, sponge material) forming an upper fabric or film side of said abrasive product (FIG 4A; (¶52, “exterior surface portion 255 (abrasive surface and backing)”), and
to a lower side of said foam core layer (FIG 4A; ¶52 pad 220, cushioning layer 261, exterior surface portion 255, abrasive surface and backing) forming a lower fabric or film side of said abrasive product (FIG 4A; ¶52 “exterior surface portion 255 (abrasive surface and backing)”), and
said fabric or film layer is each adhered to said foam core layer by way of an adhesive layer (¶24, “being attached to that surface with an adhesive”; ¶60, adhesive, heat bonding, tape, glue), and
said upper fabric or film side comprises an abrasive layer (FIG 4A; (¶52, “exterior surface portion 255 (abrasive surface and backing)”) comprising abrasive particles (¶47).
Regarding claim 2, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above,
wherein said device is driven by a battery (¶39 battery powered; ¶41, two AA batteries), in particular wherein the battery is a battery configured to be removed without the requirement for further tools (¶40, removeable/replaceable power source), in particular wherein the battery is a rechargeable battery (¶39 charged by a charger).
Regarding claim 3, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein the handle portion is ergonomically formed (¶40, suitable for gripping by the human hand), and/or wherein the handle portion and the housing portionFIGs 4A-B; ¶40).
Regarding claim 4, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein said backing pad is configured to be set in an oscillating motion of 1000 to 15000 rpm, preferably 2000 to 12000 rpm, and more preferably 4000 to 8000 rpm by said electric drive (¶78, “6,000 or fewer revolutions per minute”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Rhodes teaches a non-therapeutic method of abrading skin from at least one subject (FIG 12; ¶¶124-125), comprising the steps of
(a) providing a skin abrasion device as defined in claim 1 (FIG 12; ¶125, tool 110, applicator attachment 200; ¶52, comprising exterior portion 255; ¶58 treatment attachments with abrasive particles), comprising a first attachable abrasive product with a selected first particle size of the abrasive particles (FIG 12; ¶126; ¶58 treatment attachments with abrasive particles; ¶129 exfoliated);
(b) conducting a first abrading step, wherein skin is abraded from a subject using the skin abrasion device of step (a) (FIG 12; ¶129 exfoliated);
(c) removing said first attachable abrasive product from said skin abrasion device, and attaching a second attachable abrasive product with a selected second particle size of the abrasive particles (FIG 12; ¶128); and
(d) conducting a second abrading step, wherein skin is abraded from a subject using the skin abrasion device resulting from step (c) (FIG 12; ¶131);
optionally wherein method steps (c) and (d) are repeated at least one more time (FIG 12; 133).
Regarding claim 15, Rhodes teaches the method of claim 14, as set forth above, wherein the subject in step (b) and step (d) is the same subject (FIG 12; ¶¶125-133); in particular wherein the second particle size is the same or smaller than the first particle size, preferably wherein the second particle size is smaller than the first particle size (¶129, exfoliated with applicator attachment 200 (particle size between 320 and 30 grit, ¶47), cleaned and/or polished with brush attachment 300; polished¶53; see also ¶22 range of microparticle grit size).
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.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes, US 20060058714 (16 March 2006) in view of Ignon et al., US 20090192442 (July 30 2009).
Regarding claim 5, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein said device comprises means for preselecting the rpm of said oscillating motion (¶44, motion selection switch 285).
The specification refers to “means for preselecting the rpm of said oscillating motion” as a device component or feature such as a button (Specification, p. 3) or speed adjustment control (Specification p. 3). These references are separately described from a means for wireless communication with a second device, which are taught at p. 4 of the Specification and include an exemplary embodiment (“e.g.”) as using a Bluetooth standard (p. 4). The “said means for wireless communication is also exemplified as “for instance, a radio transceiver or receiver. Said second device may be a terminal device or a user equipment, or both” (Specification p. 4). Accordingly, the “means for preselecting the rpm of said oscillating motion” is broadly interpreted as a structure of a device, component, or feature such as a button (Specification, p. 3) or speed adjustment control (Specification p. 3) and equivalents thereof as well as device encompassing a radio transceiver, receiver, a terminal device, user equipment, a Bluetooth standard, and equivalents thereof.
Rhodes teaches motion selection switch 285. Rhodes teaches a device comprising a means within Applicant’s definition of a means for preselecting the rpm of said oscillating motion. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, the means may be a simple on/off button, an adjustment control mechanism, or a transceiver/receiver device. Accordingly, the “and/or” alternative requirements of the claim are met in the alternative reading, given the teachings of Rhodes. Additionally, the “in particular” language of the claim is interpreted to be relative alternative language (as set forth above), which is interpreted in conjunction with the alternative language of claim 5 and the other two “and/or” recitations in the claim that are otherwise met by motion selection switch 285 of Rhodes along the first alternative path.
However, in the interests of compact prosecution and to the extent that Rhodes does not teach the alternative claim limitations, a combinatorial rejection drawn to Rhodes in view of Ignon is applicable.
Rhodes does not teach the alternative length in time of said oscillating motion, in particular, wherein said means comprise means for wireless communication with a second device and wherein the rpm of said oscillating motion and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion are selected in response to receiving a message defining the rpm of said oscillating motion and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion from said second device via the wireless connection.
Ignon teaches handpiece assembly 100 for treating the skin (Abstract) comprising wireless communication via a controller that is separate from the handpiece assembly that can be connected through a wireless connection including Bluetooth (¶114). Ignon teaches that handpiece assembly 100 comprises a display that is adapted to provide information comprising settings and that the display can be configured to permit users to made adjustments (¶114). Selection devices or features including knobs, buttons, dials, and/or displays can be positioned on the handpiece assembly 100 (¶114).
Rhodes and Ignon both teach devices comprising handpiece assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes discloses the device comprising means for preselecting the rpm of said oscillating motion (¶44, motion selection switch 285), Rhodes does not teach the alternative embodiments of the claim comprising: and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion, in particular, wherein said means comprise means for wireless communication with a second device and wherein the rpm of said oscillating motion and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion are selected in response to receiving a message defining the rpm of said oscillating motion and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion from said second device via the wireless connection.
Ignon specifically addresses the inclusion of a device controller for changing the settings of the device through a wireless connection, including Bluetooth (¶114). Because Ignon includes a wireless communication (Bluetooth standard) setting along with several other manual control setting means, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control the revolutions per second of oscillating motion or the length of time of the oscillating motion using means for wireless communication with a second device in Rhodes’ architecture would reasonably consult Ignon’s handpiece assembly solution. Ignon’s wireless communication can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly (same general location and interaction with the handpiece assembly 100 and applicator attachment 200) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (control mechanisms for handpiece assemblies used in skin treatment procedures) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a display and wireless communication (Bluetooth) controller to the handpiece), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 16, Rhodes teaches the method of claim 14, as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises after step (a) and prior to step (b), and/or after step (b) and prior to step (d) (FIG 12), preselecting the rpm of the oscillating motion of said device and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion of said device (turning on the device to engage the motor 160; ¶78); in particular wherein the rpm of said oscillating motion is elected within the range of 1000 to 15000 rpm, preferably 2000 to 12000 rpm, and more preferably 4000 to 8000 rpm (¶78, “6,000 or fewer revolutions per minute”).
Rhodes does not teach the optional recitation wherein the rpm and/or the time of said oscillating motion is selected via a wireless connection using a second device, in particular wherein said wireless connection uses a Bluetooth standard.
Ignon teaches handpiece assembly 100 for treating the skin (Abstract) comprising wireless communication via a controller that is separate from the handpiece assembly that can be connected through a wireless connection including Bluetooth (¶114). Ignon teaches that handpiece assembly 100 comprises a display that is adapted to provide information comprising settings and that the display can be configured to permit users to made adjustments (¶114). Selection devices or features including knobs, buttons, dials, and/or displays can be positioned on the handpiece assembly 100 (¶114).
Rhodes and Ignon both teach devices comprising handpiece assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes discloses the device comprising means for preselecting the rpm of said oscillating motion (¶44, motion selection switch 285), Rhodes does not teach the alternative embodiments of the claim comprising: and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion, in particular, wherein said means comprise means for wireless communication with a second device and wherein the rpm of said oscillating motion and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion are selected in response to receiving a message defining the rpm of said oscillating motion and/or the length in time of said oscillating motion from said second device via the wireless connection.
Ignon specifically addresses the inclusion of a device controller for changing the settings of the device through a wireless connection, including Bluetooth (¶114). Because Ignon includes a wireless communication (Bluetooth standard) setting along with several other manual control setting means, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control the revolutions per second of oscillating motion or the length of time of the oscillating motion using means for wireless communication with a second device in Rhodes’ architecture would reasonably consult Ignon’s handpiece assembly solution. Ignon’s wireless communication can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly (same general location and interaction with the handpiece assembly 100 and applicator attachment 200) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (control mechanisms for handpiece assemblies used in skin treatment procedures) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a display and wireless communication (Bluetooth) controller to the handpiece), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes, US 20060058714 (16 March 2006) in view of Menke et al., US 20110028993 (3 February 2011).
Regarding claim 6, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above.
Rhodes does not expressly teach wherein said attachable abrasive product is attached to said backing pad using a hook and loop system; in particular wherein the backing pad comprises the hook part of said system, and wherein the abrasive product comprises the loop part of said system positioned at the lower fabric side of said abrasive product); optionally wherein the abrasive product is a disposable abrasive product.
However, Rhodes teaches that skin abrasion device (200) can be detachably connected to device or tool 110 by a hook and loop coupling material (¶61). Rhodes also teaches that a treatment attachment may be replaced by switching the treatment attachment with a similar or different type of treatment attachment after none, one, or many uses (¶76).
Menke teaches a hand held mechanical skin resurfacing device (Abstract; FIG 2, system 1) wherein said attachable abrasive product (FIG 2, 21; ¶64) is attached to a backing pad using a hook and loop system (FIG 2; loop-engageable surface 27, ¶61); in particular wherein the backing pad comprises the hook part of said system (FIG 2; ¶53), and wherein the abrasive product comprises the loop part of said system positioned at the lower fabric side of said abrasive product (FIG 2; ¶54); optionally wherein the abrasive product is a disposable abrasive product (¶98).
Rhodes and Menke both teach devices comprising hand held assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes teaches that skin abrasion device (200) can be detachably connected to device or tool 110 by a hook and loop coupling material (¶61) and Rhodes teaches that a treatment attachment may be replaced by switching the treatment attachment with a similar or different type of treatment attachment after none, one, or many uses (¶76), Rhodes does not expressly teach wherein said attachable abrasive product is attached to said backing pad using a hook and loop system; in particular wherein the backing pad comprises the hook part of said system, and wherein the abrasive product comprises the loop part of said system positioned at the lower fabric side of said abrasive product); optionally wherein the abrasive product is a disposable abrasive product.
Menke specifically addresses the structure of the hook and loop system attaching the adhesive product to the backing and also the optional embodiment where the abrasive product is a disposable abrasive product. Because both Rhodes and Menke teach a hook and loop system as an attachment mechanism and Menke specifically teaches the hook and loop system attaching the attachable abrasive component to the backing pad component, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize a hook and loop system to reversibly or temporarily attach an adhesive product to the device’s backing pad, would reasonably consult Menke’s device solution. Menke’s hook and loop system can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly (same general location and interaction with the handpiece assembly 100 and applicator attachment 200) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (hook and loop attachment as a reversable attachment mechanism for component parts, including optional disposable component parts) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding hook and loop materials as a connecting mechanism), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 7, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein the backing pad and the abrasive product each have independently a round shape, in particular a circular shape or an oval shape, preferably a circular shape, most preferably the backing pad and the abrasive product have the same shape; in particular wherein the backing pad has a diameter in the range of 10 to 100 mm (Rhodes: ¶67, head portion 120 has a diameter of about 2.5cm - 5cm (about 25mm to about 50mm)), preferably 20 to 77 mm, more preferably 32 to 40 mm, preferably 32 to 39 mm, more preferably 32 to 38 mm, more preferably 32 to 37 mm, more preferably 32 to 36 mm, more preferably 33 to 35 mm, and most preferably a diameter of about 34 mm at its widest point, and/or wherein the abrasive product has a diameter in the range of 32 to 40 mm, preferably 32 to 39 mm, more preferably 32 to 38 mm, more preferably 32 to 37 mm, more preferably 32 to 36 mm, more preferably 33 to 35 mm, and most preferably a diameter of about 34 mm at its widest point (Rhodes: ¶67, head portion 120 has a diameter of about 2.5cm - 5cm (about 25mm to about 50mm)).
Rhodes does not teach in particular wherein the diameter of the backing pad is smaller than the diameter of the abrasive product, and wherein the diameter of the backing pad does not differ in more than 4 mm, preferably not more than in 3 mm, more preferably not more than in 2 mm, still more preferably not more than in 1 mm, and most preferably 0,5 mm.
Menke teaches a hand held mechanical skin resurfacing device (Abstract; FIG 2, system 1) comprising discrete abrasive units (¶64) that form a skin-contactable surface (FIG 2, 21). Menke teaches wherein the diameter of the backing pad is smaller than the diameter of the abrasive product (FIG 2, buffer region 26; ¶53). Menke also teaches examples of abrasive layers being cut into circular pads having a diameter of 41 mm (¶110).
Although Menke does not teach the exact diameter of the difference between the backing pad and the abrasive product, Menke teaches that the purpose of the overhang region 26 (FIG 2) is “such that is less likely, even with some misalignment of the skin-contactable element 29 and the loop-engageable surface 27, for portions of the loop-engageable surface 27 to contact the skin in use” (¶53). Thus, the teaching and suggestion of Menke would reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a minimal buffer region to reduce the chance of the loop-engageable surface of the pad from contacting the skin in the event of misalignment.
Rhodes and Menke both teach devices comprising hand held assemblies for treating the skin. Although Rhodes teaches the backing pad has a diameter in the range of 10 to 100 mm (Rhodes: ¶67, head portion 120 has a diameter of about 2.5cm - 5cm (about 25mm to about 50mm)), Rhodes does not teach in particular wherein the diameter of the backing pad is smaller than the diameter of the abrasive product, or where the diameter of the backing pad does not differ in more than 4 mm, preferably not more than in 3 mm, more preferably not more than in 2 mm, still more preferably not more than in 1 mm, and most preferably 0,5 mm.
Although Menke specifically addresses the diameter of the backing pad is smaller than the diameter of the abrasive product (FIG 2, buffer region 26; ¶53), Menke does not teach the exact diameter of the difference between the backing pad and the abrasive product. Menke teaches that the purpose of the overhang region 26 (FIG 2) is “such that is less likely, even with some misalignment of the skin-contactable element 29 and the loop-engageable surface 27, for portions of the loop-engageable surface 27 to contact the skin in use” (¶53). Thus, the teaching and suggestion of Menke would reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a buffer region to reduce the chance of the loop-engageable surface of the pad from contacting the skin in the event of misalignment.
Given that Menke also teaches examples of abrasive layers being cut into circular pads having a diameter of 41 mm (¶110) and Rhodes teaches that the backing pad has a diameter of about 25mm to about 50mm, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to determine the optimal overhang without undue experimentation from these two comparably sized devices and their components.
Determining the optimized range of overhang, given the express teachings of buffer 26 by Menke would amount to nothing more than routine experimentation that can be optimized on an individual device basis (see In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977; and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Because both Rhodes and Menke teach an abrasive product attached to a backing pad and both teach a comparable range of sizes and Menke teaches a buffer 26 overlap for the purposes of avoiding skin-contact with the loop-engageable surface of the backing pad, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize a hook and loop system to reversibly or temporarily attach an adhesive product to the device’s backing pad, would reasonably consult Menke’s device solution. Menke’s hook and loop system can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly (same general location and interaction with the handpiece assembly 100 and applicator attachment 200) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (hook and loop attachment as a reversable attachment mechanism for component parts, including optional disposable component parts) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding hook and loop materials as a connecting mechanism), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. Moreover, the difference in the diameter of the overhang may be accomplished by routine methods and without undue experimentation based on the express teachings in Rhodes and Menke.
Regarding claim 8, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above.
Rhodes does not teach wherein the abrasive product has a thickness of 1 to 10 mm, preferably 4 to 10 mm, preferably a thickness of 5 to 9 mm, more preferably a thickness of 5 to 8 mm, and even more preferably of 6 to 7 mm.
Menke teaches wherein the abrasive product has a thickness of 1 to 10 mm, preferably 4 to 10 mm, preferably a thickness of 5 to 9 mm, more preferably a thickness of 5 to 8 mm, and even more preferably of 6 to 7 mm (¶46, the skin-contactable element has a thickness from about 0.1mm to about 20mm).
Rhodes and Menke both teach devices comprising hand held assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, Rhodes does not teach the thickness of the abrasive product. Menke specifically addresses this and teaches that the skin-contactable element has a thickness from about 0.1mm to about 20mm (¶46). Rhodes and Menke also teach similar diameter sizes for the head portions and pads of their assemblies. Rhodes teaches that head portion 120 has a diameter of about 2.5cm - 5cm (about 25mm to about 50mm) (¶67) and Menke teaches examples of abrasive layers being cut into circular pads having a diameter of 41 mm (¶110).
Because both Rhodes and Menke teach similar hand held assembly devices with abrasive components and backing pad components with similar diameters, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize a similarly sized device to Rhodes’ base device would reasonably consult Menke’s device solution where the abrasive/skin-contactable element has a thickness from about 0.1 mm to about 20 mm. Menke’s abrasive element thickness can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly and head portion (similar and overlapping diameters) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (skin abrading devices with similarly sized abrasive products) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adjusting the thickness of the abrasive product), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 9, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Rhodes teaches that the treatment attachment may comprise a porous material such as a sponge, a polyurethane sponge pad, a latex sponge pad, or other closed-cell sponge material having dimensions suitable for contacting an area of human skin or body part (¶96).
Rhodes does not teach wherein said foam core layer (B) has a thickness of 1 to 10 mm, preferably 3 to 7 mm, preferably a thickness of 4 to 6 mm, and most preferably a thickness of about 5 mm. Rhodes does not expressly teach that the foam has a hardness such that it can adapt to the contour of the skin to be abraded. However, Rhodes does teach that the sponge material having dimensions suitable for contacting an area of human skin or body part (¶96). Additionally, hardness is a physical property of the composition. Insofar as Rhodes teaches a polyurethane foam/sponge pad, as also recited in claim 9, the hardness requirement for a polyurethane foam/sponge material is inherently met in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Menke teaches a laminate of nonwoven material with abrasives and formulations and an added layer of foam material (¶76), as well as loop-engageable fasteners (¶76) and films (¶77).
Menke teaches the skin-contactable element to have a thickness that is from about 0.1 mm to about 20 mm.
Menke does not expressly teach the thickness of the foam core layer, but given the alternatives in the laminated structure taught at ¶76, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to utilize a similarly sized device to Rhodes’ base device would reasonably consult Menke’s solution where the skin-contactable element has a thickness from about 0.1 mm to about 20 mm overall and the laminated layers and foam material (B) comprises an A:B or A:B:A arrangement or with the foam (B) material under the loop-engageable fastener for added compressibility of the system (¶76).
Menke’s foam element thickness can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly comprising layered head portion components (similar and overlapping diameters) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (skin abrading devices with similarly sized layered skin-contacting products) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adjusting the thickness of the foam core depending on the desired structure of the skin-contactable element/product), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 10, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above.Rhodes teaches that the device comprises a fabric layer of cotton, natural, or synthetic fabrics (¶96).
Rhodes does not teach wherein said fabric or film layer each independently has a thickness of less than 1 mm, preferably a thickness selected within the range of 0,25 to 0,9 mm, more preferably a thickness selected within the range of 0,4 to 0,8 mm, such as a thickness selected within the range of 0,5 to 0,7 mm; and/or wherein said fabric layer is a woven or non-woven fabric layer made from one or more synthetic polymer fibers, preferably from polyamide fibers. Menke teaches suitable fibrous material comprising woven or non-woven fabrics including polymers and polyamides (¶50). Menke teaches that the fibers have a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm (¶51).
Rhodes and Menke both teach devices comprising hand held assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, Rhodes does not teach the thickness of the fabric or film layer. Menke specifically addresses this and teaches suitable fibrous material comprising woven or non-woven fabrics including polymers and polyamides (¶50) and that the fibers have a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm (¶51).
Because both Rhodes and Menke teach similar hand held assembly devices with layered fabric or film components, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize a similarly sized device to Rhodes’ base device would reasonably consult Menke’s device solution where the fabric or film elements have a thickness from about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm. The thickness of Menke’s fabric or film element can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly and head portion (with similar and overlapping component structures and elements) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (layered skin abrading devices with similar components) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adjusting the thickness of the fabric or film component), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 11, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Rhodes teaches wherein said abrasive layer comprises abrasive particles with a grit number selected within the range of 80 to 4000 according to FEPA, in particular 180 to 1000, in particular 360 to 800, such as 500 (¶47, particle grit size between 320 and 30 grit). Rhodes teaches wherein the abrasive particles in the abrasive layer are made of silicon carbide (¶47). Rhodes abrasive particles with an average particle size in diameter of 3 to 201 µm, in particular 20 to 45 µm (¶22, average particle size of 34 microns).
Rhodes does not teach the thickness of the abrasive layer, wherein said abrasive layer has a thickness of less than 0,5 mm, in particular a thickness within the range of 0,1 to 0,4 mm, such as a thickness within a range of 0,2 to 0,3 mm.
Menke teaches a hand held mechanical skin resurfacing device (Abstract; FIG 2, system 1) comprising discrete abrasive units (¶64) that form a skin-contactable surface (FIG 2, 21) where the skin-contactable element has a thickness from about 0.1 mm to about 20 mm (¶46). Menke teaches wherein said abrasive layer has a thickness of less than 0,5 mm, in particular a thickness within the range of 0,1 to 0,4 mm, such as a thickness within a range of 0,2 to 0,3 mm (¶46, skin-contactable element has a thickness from about 0.1 mm to about 20 mm).
Rhodes and Menke both teach devices comprising hand held assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes teaches wherein said abrasive layer comprises abrasive particles with a grit number selected within the range of 80 to 4000 according to FEPA, in particular 180 to 1000, in particular 360 to 800, such as 500 (¶47, particle grit size between 320 and 30 grit), Rhodes teaches wherein the abrasive particles in the abrasive layer are made of silicon carbide (¶47), and Rhodes abrasive particles with an average particle size in diameter of 3 to 201 µm, in particular 20 to 45 µm (¶22, average particle size of 34 microns), Rhodes does not expressly teach the thickness of the abrasive layer, wherein said abrasive layer has a thickness of less than 0,5 mm, in particular a thickness within the range of 0,1 to 0,4 mm, such as a thickness within a range of 0,2 to 0,3 mm.
Menke specifically addresses the thickness of the abrasive layer within the recited range. Because both Rhodes and Menke teach an abrasive layer and Menke teaches the thickness of the abrasive layer, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize or optimize an adhesive layer thickness, would reasonably consult Menke’s device solution. Menke’s abrasive layer thickness can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly (same general location and interaction with the handpiece assembly 100 and applicator attachment 200) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (an abrasive pad as an applicator attachment) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adjusting the thickness of the abrasive layer within a specified range to most effectively abrade the skin, which is the intended purpose of the abrasive particle layer in both devices), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 12, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above.
Rhodes does not teach wherein said abrasive particles are embedded in said abrasive layer using a cured resin, in particular thermally cured resin or radiation cured resin.
Menke teaches a skin abrasive system (¶67; 43) where the abrasive system (43) comprises a resin that is thermally cured (thermosetting polymer) (¶70). See also the embodiment at ¶109.
Rhodes and Menke both teach devices comprising hand held assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, Rhodes does not teach wherein said abrasive particles are embedded in said abrasive layer using a cured resin, in particular thermally cured resin or radiation cured resin. Menke specifically addresses a skin abrasive system (¶67; 43) comprising a resin that is thermally cured (thermosetting polymer) (¶70). See also the embodiment at ¶109. Because both Rhodes and Menke teach an abrasive layer and Menke teaches that abrasive particles are embedded in an abrasive layer using a thermosetting polymer resin (¶70) a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize a thermally cured resin, would reasonably consult Menke’s solution. Menke’s abrasive layer comprising a thermosetting polymer resin can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly (same general location and interaction with the handpiece assembly 100 and applicator attachment 200) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (an abrasive pad as an applicator attachment) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adjusting the abrasive particle layer in skin abrasion devices), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 13, Rhodes teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above.
Rhodes teaches treatment attachments may be made of plastic, polyurethane, and/or polymer and may be attachable by adhesive (¶109). Treatment attachments may be attached by adhesive, heat bonding glue, or other sufficient attachment systems (¶60).
Rhodes does not teach wherein said adhesive layer has independently each a thickness of less than 0,5 mm, in particular a thickness within the range of 0,1 to 0,4 mm, such as a thickness within a range of 0,1 to 0,3 mm.
Menke teaches adhesives as layer 28 (FIG 2; ¶54), but does not expressly recite the thickness of the adhesive.
Rhodes and Menke both teach devices comprising hand held assemblies for treating the skin. Although, Rhodes teaches treatment attachments may be made of plastic, polyurethane, and/or polymer and may be attachable by adhesive (¶109) and that treatment attachments may be attached by adhesive, heat bonding glue, or other sufficient attachment systems (¶60), Rhodes does not teach wherein said adhesive layer has independently each a thickness of less than 0,5 mm, in particular a thickness within the range of 0,1 to 0,4 mm, such as a thickness within a range of 0,1 to 0,3 mm.
Menke teaches adhesives as layer 28 (FIG 2; ¶54), but does not expressly recite the thickness of the adhesive. Menke teaches that it is desirable for the skin-contactable element to have a thickness that is from about 0.1 mm to about 20 mm (¶46).
Menke specifically addresses the thickness of the skin-contactable element within the recited range, although it is not broken down by component part, such as adhesive-specific basis. However, the general lower limit of 0.1 mm is taught by Menke. Because both Rhodes and Menke teach an adhesive layer and Menke teaches a range of thickness of the skin-contactable element within a range of 0.1 mm to 20 mm, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize or optimize an adhesive layer thickness, would reasonably consult Menke’s solution. Menke’s adhesive layer thickness can be incorporated alongside Rhodes’ handpiece assembly (same general location and interaction with the handpiece assembly 100 and applicator attachment 200) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rhodes’ core device handpiece and applicator attachment. Because the references address the same engineering problem (an adhesive layer as a point of layer attachment) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adjusting the thickness of the adhesive layer within the specified range to most effectively join the respective layers of the device), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eknoian et al., US 20070010828 (11 January 2007) teaches material for mechanical resurfacing techniques using a handheld device to the skin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771