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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the user input part, the mechanical button, the touchscreen, and the voice recognition module must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “pulse hot intervals” in lines 10-11 should read “pulse shot intervals”. 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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “an energy supply part configured to supply energy” in claim 1, and “a voice recognition module configured to recognize a user’s voice” in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not provide any description of what structure is acting as the “energy supply part” and what structure is acting as the “voice recognition module”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “an energy supply part configured to supply energy” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides no description of what structure is acting as the “energy supply part”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “some” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “some” 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. Because the term “some” is not defined in the specification, the number of electrodes that the energy supply part can power in unknown, and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
The term “progressively” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “progressively” 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. Because the term “progressively” is not defined in the specification, it is unclear what amount of energy a pulse is irradiated at in the second interval, and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Claim limitation “a voice recognition module configured to recognize a user’s voice” in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides no description of what structure is acting as the “voice recognition module”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-10 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 specification provides no description of what structure is acting as the “energy supply part” or the “cooling part”, and therefore the scope of the instant claims is unclear and indefinite. For examination purposes, the “energy supply part” is being interpreted as any device that can provide energy to electrodes. For examination purposes, the “cooling part” is being interpreted as any device that can lower the temperature of skin of a patient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prouza et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0146119).
Regarding claim 1, Prouza teaches a pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) for relieving pain (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) through control of output energy for each pulse and timing of cooling (Fig. 24, Paragraph 0283, lines 1-3), the pain relief device comprising: an electrode part (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0142, line 1) in contact with (Paragraph 0268, lines 1-4) surface of skin (Paragraph 0137, lines 3-4); an energy supply part (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0106, lines 4-5) configured to supply energy to the electrode part (Paragraph 0037, lines 1-3) during a reference cycle (Paragraph 0045, lines 8-9); a cooling part (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0112, lines 1-3); and a processor (Paragraph 0035, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0156, lines 9-11, and Paragraph 0274, lines 13-14) configured to control the energy supply part and the cooling part (Paragraph 0110, lines 4-6), wherein the processor is configured to: separate the reference cycle into a plurality of pulse shot intervals (Fig. 23A, Paragraph 0276, lines 3-5) and control the energy supply part to maintain constant output energy during all the separated pulse hot intervals (Paragraph 0133, lines 17-21); and control the cooling part to lower a temperature of the surface of the skin by a preset temperature (Fig. 24, Paragraph 0284, lines 1-4) in at least a portion between the separated pulse shot intervals (Fig. 24, Paragraph 0283, lines 7-12), wherein the reference cycle is a default unit time (Paragraph 0362, lines 1-3) for the energy supply part to irradiate RF energy to the skin through the electrode part (Paragraph 0052, lines 2-3), and is set within a range from a minimum irradiation time to a maximum irradiation time of the RF energy (Paragraph 0357, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 0435, lines 1-6), and wherein the plurality of pulse shot intervals are arranged sequentially within the reference cycle (Fig. 23A, Paragraph 0276, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 2, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 1, further comprising: a temperature sensor (Paragraph 0235, line 15) configured to measure a temperature of a treated portion of the skin (Paragraph 0139, lines 1-13), wherein the processor (Paragraph 0035, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0156, lines 9-11, and Paragraph 0274, lines 13-14) is configured to: monitor a change in the temperature of the treated portion of the skin through the temperature sensor (Paragraph 0427, lines 10-13); and when the temperature of the treated portion (Paragraph 0423, lines 4-6) is higher than a preset threshold (Paragraph 0428, lines 7-8), control the cooling part to lower the temperature of the treated portion (Paragraph 0131, lines 5-10 and Paragraph 0428, lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 3, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 2, wherein the electrode part (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0142, line 1) includes a plurality of electrodes (Paragraph 0147, line 7), wherein the processor (Paragraph 0035, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0156, lines 9-11, and Paragraph 0274, lines 13-14) is configured to control the energy supply part to supply power (Paragraph 0037, lines 1-3) to some or all of the plurality of electrodes (Paragraph 0326, line 9) during the reference cycle (Paragraph 0045, lines 8-9) based on the change in the temperature of the treated portion of the skin (Paragraph 0427, lines 10-13).
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 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prouza et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0146119) in view of Knowlton (U.S. PGPub No. 2003/0236487).
Regarding claim 4, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 1, wherein the processor (Paragraph 0035, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0156, lines 9-11, and Paragraph 0274, lines 13-14) is configured to: separate the reference cycle (Paragraph 0045, lines 8-9) into a first interval and (Fig. 3, Paragraph 0131, lines 4-7, range from beginning to 301a) a second interval (Fig. 3, Paragraph 0131, lines 10-13, range from 301a to 301b) based on a specified time point (301a) within the reference cycle (Fig. 3); and control the energy supply part (Paragraph 0110, lines 4-6) such that pulses with different energies are irradiated in the first interval and the second interval (Fig. 25, Paragraph 0286, lines 1-4).
Prouza, however, does not explicitly teach that pulses with different energies are irradiated in the first and second intervals. Knowlton teaches a method for treatment of tissue with feedback that uses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0083, line 1) to supply RF energy to tissue by using an RF electrode (Paragraph 0099, lines 3-4) that contacts the skin (Paragraph 0086, lines 4-5). Knowlton also teaches that the apparatus can determine whether and when a pain has occurred for a patient (Paragraph 0150, lines 7-11). Furthermore, Knowlton teaches that once pain occurs, the energy levels supplied by the energy delivery device can be decreased (Paragraph 0178, lines 10-16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prouza to incorporate the teachings of Knowlton to include that pulses with different energies are irradiated in the first and second intervals. Doing so would reduce patient pain and discomfort during or after a tissue treatment, as well as reduce the incidence of unwanted tissue injury including thermal injuries and burns (Paragraph 0078), as recognized by Knowlton.
It also would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that as skin temperature increases in the first interval, as shown in Figure 3 of Prouza, pulses with one energy are irradiated. It would also be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that as skin temperature decreases in the second interval, as shown in Figure 3 of Prouza, pulses with a different energy are irradiated, since skin temperature has a direct and positive correlation with increased RF energy intensity.
Regarding claim 5, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 4, wherein the processor (Paragraph 0035, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0156, lines 9-11, and Paragraph 0274, lines 13-14) is configured to: control the energy supply part such that a pulse with first energy (Fig. 25, Paragraph 0286, lines 1-4) is irradiated in the first interval (Fig. 3, Paragraph 0131, lines 4-7, range from beginning to 301a); and control the energy supply part such that a pulse with second energy lower than the first energy (Fig. 25, Paragraph 0286, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 0289, lines 10-12) is irradiated in the second interval (Fig. 3, Paragraph 0131, lines 10-13, range from 301a to 301b).
Prouza, however, does not explicitly teach that a pulse with a second energy lower than the first energy is irradiated in the second interval. Knowlton teaches a method for treatment of tissue with feedback that uses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0083, line 1) to supply RF energy to tissue by using an RF electrode (Paragraph 0099, lines 3-4) that contacts the skin (Paragraph 0086, lines 4-5). Knowlton also teaches that the apparatus can determine whether and when a pain has occurred for a patient (Paragraph 0150, lines 7-11). Furthermore, Knowlton teaches that once pain occurs, the energy levels supplied by the energy delivery device can be decreased (Paragraph 0178, lines 10-16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prouza to incorporate the teachings of Knowlton to include that pulses with different energies are irradiated in the first and second intervals. Doing so would reduce patient pain and discomfort during or after a tissue treatment, as well as reduce the incidence of unwanted tissue injury including thermal injuries and burns (Paragraph 0078), as recognized by Knowlton.
It also would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that as skin temperature increases in the first interval, as shown in Figure 3 of Prouza, pulses with one energy are irradiated. It would also be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that as skin temperature decreases in the second interval, as shown in Figure 3 of Prouza, pulses with a lower energy are irradiated, since skin temperature has a direct and positive correlation with increased RF energy intensity.
Regarding claim 6, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 4, wherein the processor (Paragraph 0035, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0156, lines 9-11, and Paragraph 0274, lines 13-14) is configured to: control the energy supply part such that a pulse with first energy (Fig. 25, Paragraph 0286, lines 1-4) is irradiated in the first interval (Fig. 3, Paragraph 0131, lines 4-7, range from beginning to 301a); and control the energy supply part such that a pulse with progressively lower energy from the first energy (Fig. 25, Paragraph 0286, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 0289, lines 10-12) is irradiated in the second interval (Fig. 3, Paragraph 0131, lines 10-13, range from 301a to 301b).
Prouza, however, does not explicitly teach that a pulse with progressively lower energy from the first energy is irradiated in the second interval. Knowlton teaches a method for treatment of tissue with feedback that uses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0083, line 1) to supply RF energy to tissue by using an RF electrode (Paragraph 0099, lines 3-4) that contacts the skin (Paragraph 0086, lines 4-5). Knowlton also teaches that the apparatus can determine whether and when a pain has occurred for a patient (Paragraph 0150, lines 7-11). Furthermore, Knowlton teaches that once pain occurs, the energy levels supplied by the energy delivery device can be decreased (Paragraph 0178, lines 10-16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prouza to incorporate the teachings of Knowlton to include that pulses with different energies are irradiated in the first and second intervals. Doing so would reduce patient pain and discomfort during or after a tissue treatment, as well as reduce the incidence of unwanted tissue injury including thermal injuries and burns (Paragraph 0078), as recognized by Knowlton.
It also would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that as skin temperature increases in the first interval, as shown in Figure 3 of Prouza, pulses with one energy are irradiated. It would also be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that as skin temperature decreases in the second interval, as shown in Figure 3 of Prouza, pulses with a lower energy are irradiated, since skin temperature has a direct and positive correlation with increased RF energy intensity.
Regarding claim 7, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 4. Prouza does not teach that the pain relief device comprises a user input part configured to collect, from a patient, whether and when a pain has occurred, and wherein the processor is configured to receive, from a specific patient via the user input part, whether the pain has occurred and when the pain has occurred while irradiating pulses to the specific patient during the reference cycle, and calculate the specified time point based on time when the pain has occurred.
Knowlton, however, teaches a method for treatment of tissue with feedback that uses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0083, line 1) that comprises a handpiece (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0085, line 2), an energy delivery device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0086, line 1), a cooling device (Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0087, lines 3-4), and a processor (Paragraph 0087, line 11). Knowlton teaches that the apparatus further includes a user input part (Paragraph 0150, lines 4-5) that can collect, from a patient, whether and when a pain has occurred (Paragraph 0150, lines 7-11). Furthermore, Knowlton teaches that the processor is configured to receive said pain information, and determine the specified time when pain occurred (Paragraph 0166, lines 1-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prouza to incorporate the teachings of Knowlton to include that the pain relief device comprises a user input part, which allows a patient to input whether and when they feel pain, so that the processor can then determine at what time point pain has occurred. Doing so would allow a medical provider to use a patient’s perceived pain during a skin treatment to more rapidly and precisely control the delivery of energy to a selected tissue site (Paragraph 0178), as recognized by Knowlton.
Regarding claim 8, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 7. Prouza does not teach that the user input part includes: a mechanical button mounted on exterior of the pain relief device to be activated by pressing or touching of a user; one of a capacitive touchscreen, a pressure sensitive touchscreen, or an ultrasonic touchscreen to be activated by direct contact with a part of the user's body; and a voice recognition module configured to recognize a user's voice to extract pain-related information, and wherein the user input part is configured to transmit pain information collected via at least one of the mechanical button, the touchscreen, and the voice recognition module to the processor.
Knowlton, however, teaches a method for treatment of tissue with feedback that uses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0083, line 1) with a user input part (Paragraph 0150, lines 4-5). Knowlton specifies that the user input part can be a mechanical button (Paragraph 0150, line 14) that is activated by being pressed or touched by the user, a touchscreen (Paragraph 0150, line 14) that is activated by direct contact with a part of the user’s body, and a voice recognition module (Paragraph 0150, line 16) configured to recognized a user’s voice to extract pain-related information (Paragraph 0169, lines 30-33). Furthermore, Knowlton teaches the user input part transmits pain information to the processor (Paragraph 0166, lines 1-29).
Although the specific type of touchscreen is not disclosed in Knowlton, it would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that there are variety of types of touchscreens including capacitive touchscreens, pressure sensitive touchscreens, or ultrasonic touchscreens that could be used for said user input part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prouza to incorporate the teachings of Knowlton to include that the user input includes a mechanical button, a touchscreen, and a voice recognition module that then transmit pain information to the processor. Doing so would allow a medical provider to use a patient’s perceived pain during a skin treatment to more rapidly and precisely control the delivery of energy to a selected tissue site (Paragraph 0178), as recognized by Knowlton.
Regarding claim 9, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 7. Prouza does not teach that the processor is configured to calculate a beginning of a specific pulse irradiated at the time the pain has occurred, as the specified time point.
Knowlton, however, teaches a method for treatment of tissue with feedback that uses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0083, line 1) with a user input part (Paragraph 0150, lines 4-5). Knowlton teaches that the user input part (Paragraph 0150, lines 4-5) can collect, from a patient, whether and when a pain has occurred (Paragraph 0150, lines 7-11). Furthermore, Knowlton teaches that the processor can calculate the time pain has occurred (Paragraph 0166, lines 1-29) based on the beginning of a specific pulse irradiated at the time the pain has occurred (Paragraph 0178, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prouza to incorporate the teachings of Knowlton to include that the processor can calculate a beginning of a specific pulse irradiated at the time the pain has occurred, as the specified time point. Doing so would allow a medical provider to use a patient’s perceived pain during a skin treatment to more rapidly and precisely control the delivery of energy to a selected tissue site so as to not induce further pain for the patient (Paragraph 0178), as recognized by Knowlton.
Regarding claim 10, Prouza teaches the pain relief (Paragraph 0023, lines 15-16) device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0104, line 1) of claim 9. Prouza does not teach that the processor is configured to: determine intensities of pulses to be irradiated in the first interval and the second interval based on an intensity of the pulse irradiated at the time the pain occurred, and control the energy supply part such that an intensity of a pulse to be irradiated in the first interval is lower than a maximum intensity of the specific pulse irradiated at the time the pain occurred.
Knowlton, however, teaches a method for treatment of tissue with feedback that uses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0083, line 1) that includes a processor (Paragraph 0087, line 11) with a database. Knowlton teaches that the database can determine what intensity of RF energy is irradiated at the time pain has occurred for a patient (Paragraph 0178, lines 1-5). The apparatus can then ensure that energy irradiated in the first interval will be below the maximum intensity that is irradiated at the time pain occurred (Paragraph 0185, lines 1-7). Furthermore, Knowlton teaches that once pain occurs, the energy levels supplied by the energy delivery device can be decreased during the second interval (Paragraph 0178, lines 10-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prouza to incorporate the teachings of Knowlton to include that the processor can determine the maximum intensity of RF energy supplied at the time pain occurs in order to control the intensities of energy irradiated in the first and second intervals. Doing so would allow a medical provider to use a patient’s perceived pain during a skin treatment to more rapidly and precisely control the delivery of energy to a selected tissue site so as to not induce further pain for the patient (Paragraph 0178), as recognized by Knowlton.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nebrigic et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,788,060) teaches a tissue treatment system that transmits high frequency energy (such as RF energy) to underlying tissue, while actively cooling the epidermis to prevent thermal damage (Col. 2).
Casalino et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0372724) teaches an apparatus and method for skin treatment using RF energy to heat skin tissue (Abstract), a cooling device to cool the skin (Paragraph 0017), and then temperature sensors that give feedback about the skin treatment (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights