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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Some of the previous claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant asserts that Altshuler and Palani, when combined, do not teach nor suggest "the side faces having an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) lower than or equal to 3.2 micrometers (pm) thereby increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile" as recited in amended claim 1. However, the combination of Altshuler and Palani with newly applied reference Zaghetto teaches the limitation.
Altshuler teaches the side faces (Fig. 15-the 4 side faces wrapping around the structure are the side faces; ¶113-117; Fig. 16).
However, Altshuler does not explicitly teach having an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) lower than or equal to 3.2 micrometers (pm) thereby increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile.
Palani was relied upon for the teaching of having an arithmetic mean roughness Ra lower than or equal to 3.2 (¶108-the average roughness R.sub.a can be between approximately 1 μm and approximately 20 μm; ¶46-a plurality of side surfaces; ¶105-surfaces with similar profiles can have similar Ra values) with the provided benefit to efficiently output uniform, or diffusive light irradiance to a patient (Palani, ¶45) and achieve the desired light output characteristics (Palani, ¶108).
While Altshuler teaches lamp emission spectra…for different durations and equal energies of light pulse (¶65), the combination of Altshuler and Palani does not explicitly teach increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile.
Zaghetto teaches increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile (¶27-pulsed energy emission refers to laser energy emissions in very rapid succession, with pulse durations typically lasting hundreds of nanoseconds. Pulsed emissions are constant or substantially constant, as defined above, from one pulse to the next, over an uninterrupted emission time or activation time in which a plurality of pulses are emitted; ¶25-26; MPEP 2114: [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). This provides the benefit of constant or substantially constant pulsed emissions from one pulse to the next, over an uninterrupted emission time or activation time in which a plurality of pulses are emitted (Zaghetto, ¶27). In addition, to deliver a number of possible therapeutic benefits to tissues in need thereof (Zaghetto, ¶25).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “an arithmetic mean roughness Ra” in claim 4, line 2 would improve clarity if recited as –an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra)—to show that Ra is the abbreviation for an arithmetic mean roughness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler (US 20020173780 filed on 2/22/02 as cited in the IDS) in view of Palaniswamy (US 20170312542 filed on 4/29/16), hereinafter referred to as Palani and Zaghetto (US 20070244526 filed on 4/14/06).
Regarding claim 1, Altshuler teaches an apparatus, the apparatus being a hand-held apparatus (¶103-the radiator is placed inside the handpiece) for emitting intense pulsed light (¶65-lamp emission spectra…for different durations and equal energies of light pulse), the apparatus comprising a body (¶53-tube 4) configured to be hand held (¶116-handpiece), the body having an aperture accommodating a treatment interface (¶12-where a tube surrounds the lamp, this gap is between the tube and the waveguide; ¶117-the width of the angular spectrum coupled into the skin by the waveguide depends on the refraction index of the medium placed in the gap between the tube 4 and the waveguide; ¶113), the treatment interface being configured to be placed against a skin (¶59-wave guide 5, at least during a treatment, is in optical and thermal contact with skin 1 of the patient in order to provide efficient coupling of light into the skin and cooling of the skin surface), the body housing a lamp suitable for emitting a light pulse through the treatment interface in an emission direction (¶53- lamp is enclosed in a glass or crystal tube 4; ¶54-both converted radiation and unconverted radiation from the lamp may be delivered to the skin through waveguide 5; ¶65-lamp emission spectra…for different durations and equal energies of light pulse), wherein the treatment interface comprises a light guide that protrudes from the body of the hand-held apparatus (¶59-wave guide 5, at least during a treatment, is in optical and thermal contact with skin 1 of the patient in order to provide efficient coupling of light into the skin and cooling of the skin surface; Fig. 2), the light guide forming a polyhedron having end faces (¶114-waveguide 5 may be in the form of a cut right-angle pyramid (FIG. 15) or a curved pyramid (FIG. 16) prism for increased intensity of the fluence on the skin surface), the end faces being opposite to each other and orthogonal to the emission direction (Fig. 15-the top and bottom faces opposite each other and connecting to the 4 side faces are the end faces; Fig. 2-shows how the end faces are orthogonal to the emission direction; ¶113-117; Fig. 16), the polyhedron having side faces (Fig. 15-the 4 side faces wrapping around the structure are the side faces; ¶113-117; Fig. 16), the side faces joining the end faces (Fig. 15-the 4 side faces wrapping around the structure join the bases which are the end faces; ¶113-117; Fig. 16), the light guide having a thickness larger than 6 millimeters (mm) (¶116-for a waveguide length H=60 mm), and the thickness being defined between the end faces in the emission direction (¶116-for a waveguide length H=60 mm; Fig. 15-the height would be between the end faces). However, Altshuler does not teach the side faces having an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) lower than or equal to 3.2 micrometers (µm) thereby, increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile.
Palani relates generally to phototherapy and, more specifically, to apparatuses and methods for effectively administering phototherapy (¶3). Palani further teaches the invention using the following step:
the side faces having an arithmetic mean roughness Ra lower than or equal to 3.2 (¶108-the average roughness R.sub.a can be between approximately 1 μm and approximately 20 μm; ¶46-a plurality of side surfaces; ¶105-surfaces with similar profiles can have similar Ra values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Altshuler to include the side faces having an arithmetic mean roughness Ra lower than or equal to 3.2 of Palani in order to efficiently output uniform, or diffusive light irradiance to a patient (Palani, ¶45) and achieve the desired light output characteristics (Palani, ¶108).
While Altshuler teaches lamp emission spectra…for different durations and equal energies of light pulse (¶65), the combination of Altshuler and Palani does not explicitly teach increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile.
Zaghetto relates to apparatuses and methods for applying laser energy for therapeutic purposes, e.g., relief of pain and/or inflammation in tissues (¶1). Zaghetto further teaches the invention using the following step:
increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile (¶27-pulsed energy emission refers to laser energy emissions in very rapid succession, with pulse durations typically lasting hundreds of nanoseconds. Pulsed emissions are constant or substantially constant, as defined above, from one pulse to the next, over an uninterrupted emission time or activation time in which a plurality of pulses are emitted; ¶25-26; MPEP 2114: [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Altshuler to include increasing the constancy of the transverse emission profile of Zaghetto in order for constant or substantially constant pulsed emissions from one pulse to the next, over an uninterrupted emission time or activation time in which a plurality of pulses are emitted (Zaghetto, ¶27). In addition, to deliver a number of possible therapeutic benefits to tissues in need thereof (Zaghetto, ¶25).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one of the end faces presents a first length along a short axis and a second length along a long axis (Altshuler, Figs. 15-16; ¶116-for a waveguide length H=60 mm A=46 mm, B=16 mm; In Fig. 15, where A is a long axis and B is a short axis), the first length being comprised between 15 mm and 30 mm (Altshuler, Figs. 15-16; ¶116-for a waveguide length H=60 mm A=46 mm, B=16 mm; In Fig. 15, where B is a short axis and is 16 mm), and the second length being comprised between 30 mm and 60 mm (Altshuler, Figs. 15-16; ¶116-for a waveguide length H=60 mm A=46 mm, B=16 mm; In Fig. 15, where A is a long axis and is 46 mm).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light guide protrudes at least 5 mm relative to the body (Altshuler, ¶116-for a waveguide length H=60 mm A=46 mm, B=16 mm; based on the placement of waveguide 5 based on Fig. 2, a height of 60 mm would protrude at least 5 mm relative to the body).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the side faces have an arithmetic mean roughness Ra greater than 0.2 µm (Palani, ¶108-the average roughness R.sub.a can be between approximately 1 μm and approximately 20 μm; ¶46-a plurality of side surfaces; ¶105-surfaces with similar profiles can have similar Ra values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Altshuler to include wherein the side faces have an arithmetic mean roughness Ra greater than 0.2 µm of Palani in order to efficiently output uniform, or diffusive light irradiance to a patient (Palani, ¶45) and achieve the desired light output characteristics (Palani, ¶108).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light guide is formed from cut and raw glass without polishing or treatment (Altshuler, ¶54-the waveguide may be made of a glass; ¶134. There is no mention of either polishing or treatment of the glass, which appears to be cut and untreated).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an opaque cover surrounding the side faces (Altshuler, ¶61-a reflector 3'' is provided adjacent each such wall, for example being coated on the wall, which reflector has high reflection, for example greater than 95%; ¶118-reflector 53 is mounted on, coated on or otherwise formed on the waveguide; ¶125-high-reflecting coatings 59 and 60 may be made only on the edges of the active part of the waveguide; ¶129).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light guide is formed of a material having a refractive index greater than 1.45 (Altshuler, ¶114-the refraction index of the waveguide 1.76; ¶113-for a rectangular prism without coatings, the refraction index should satisfy the condition n>1.4, where n is the refractive index of the waveguide, for the transport of the radiation from the lamp to the skin without losses, and n>1.7 for the return of photons reflected from the skin back into the skin).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light guide is formed of a glass block (Altshuler, ¶54-the waveguide may be made of a glass or dielectric crystal; ¶134).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a pipe configured to accommodate a circulation of water in contact with the lamp (Altshuler, ¶68-the best way to filter these wavelengths is to use water as a "water" spectral filter. In device D (FIG. 1, 2), filtering water is placed in the gap 7 between lamp 2 and tube 4).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 11, comprising a reflector surrounding the lamp except in the emission direction, the pipe being located between a reflector and the lamp (Altshuler, ¶8-the reflector preferably being small enough and mounted close enough to the lamp to achieve such minimum number of reflections. The reflector may be formed on an outer surface of the lamp. A tube may be provided surrounding the lamp with a gap between the lamp and the tube through which fluid is flowed to cool the lamp. The reflector may be formed on the inner or outer surface of the tube).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler in view of Palani and Zaghetto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Key (US 20020095143 filed on 12/17/01).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a filter disposed between the lamp and the light guide (Altshuler, ¶10-a filter device between the lamp and waveguide) and the filter and the light guide being formed of different materials (Altshuler, ¶57-a scattering filter 6 can be multilayered with different materials or different materials can be used in a single layer of liquid crystal material to control the width and wavelength of the passband; ¶55-filter 6 may be made as a multilayer dielectric interferometric coating on the surface of waveguide 5). While Altshuler also teaches a mechanism for selectively filtering light from the lamp to achieve a desired wavelength spectrum (¶10), the combination fails to explicitly teach the filter being configured to filter at least wavelengths less than 580 nanometers (nm).
Key teaches the filter being configured to filter at least wavelengths less than 580 nanometers (nm) (¶47-these cut off filters often will range from 515 nm to 590 nm, and thus allow emission of light of greater than 515 nm or 590 nm; by having a range from 515 nm to 590 nm, the filter could be set at 580 nm and allow wavelengths greater than 580 nm to pass).
Key relates to the field of skin treatment, more specifically to the use of light to change the appearance of the skin (¶2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Altshuler to include the filter being configured to filter at least wavelengths less than 580 nanometers (nm) of Key in order to utilize a sequence of irradiance of laser and intense pulsed light which are not identical, and are not a simple repetition, but are of irradiance of different nature and are complementary and additive in their tissue response (Key, ¶33). The use of the amplification of selective light energy absorption within the skin results in an increased benefit from the treatment and lessens the risk of injury by reason of non-selective energy absorption by the skin (Key, ¶33).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler in view of Palani and Zaghetto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gertner (US 20060167531 filed on 6/14/05).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches an intense pulsed light system comprises a hand-held apparatus according to claim 1. However, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto does not teach a console to which said hand-held apparatus is connected.
Gertner teaches a console to which said hand-held apparatus is connected (¶147-power delivery and timing controls are provided to the handpiece 102 from a source (such as control unit 202) outside of the handpiece 102). Gertner relates generally to optical therapies and phototherapies for treatment of diseases and physiological disorders, such as, for example, rhinitis (¶3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Altshuler to include a console to which said hand-held apparatus is connected of Gertner in order for power deliver and timing controls (Gertner, ¶147).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler in view of Palani and Zaghetto as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ren (CN 107693949 published on 2/16/18).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto teaches the hand-held apparatus according to claim 6. However, the combination of Altshuler, Palani, and Zaghetto does not explicitly teach wherein the opaque cover protrudes from the body in the emission direction on the same height as the light guide.
Ren teaches wherein the opaque cover protrudes from the body in the emission direction on the same height as the light guide (Fig. 1-light guide cover 9 is the same height as the light guide and protrudes from the body in the emission direction; page 2, 2nd to last ¶-lampshade 8 is provided with a shrinking light guide cover 9).
Ren relates to a physical therapy apparatus, in particular to an infrared thermal radiation therapy apparatus (page 1, ¶2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Altshuler to include wherein the opaque cover protrudes from the body in the emission direction on the same height as the light guide of Ren in order to adjust the angle of illumination (Ren, page 1, last ¶) and can prevent burns when adjusting the shroud (Ren, page 2, ¶1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080232137: relates to a so-called side-light-type light guide plate which is supplied with light through a side end face and emits light from an emission face, a surface light source device employing the light guide plate and an image display employing the surface light source device for illumination (¶2).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights