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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 2, the limitation “the first scattering element and the second scattering element” should read “the first light scattering element and the second light scattering element”.
In re claim 3, the limitation “the first scattering element” should read “the first light scattering elements”.
In re claim 5, the limitation “…and their apex angles is between 85°and 95°.” should read “…and their apex angles are between 85°and 95°”.
In re claim 10, the limitation “…wherein the power of each one of the light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”, should read “…wherein the power of each one of the light sources is between 100 mW and 600 mW”.
In re claim 12, the limitation “wherein a material of the first and second light scattering elements and/or of the beam expanders is polymethyl methacrylate.” should read “wherein a material of the first and second light scattering elements and/or of the beam expander is polymethyl methacrylate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“a second optical system” (claim 10)
“a third optical system” (claim 10, claim 11)
“a fourth optical system” (claim 11)
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of Rózsa et al. (Application 18/811,029; herein referred to as Rózsa II). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
18/811,029
Claim 1. A low power laser therapy device, which comprises: an optical system,
Claim 1. A low power laser therapy device, which comprises at least two optical systems,
wherein the optical system comprises: a laser light source; a beam expander in front of said light source; a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements on a frontal surface of the beam expander; and
wherein each optical system comprises a laser light source, a beam expander in front of said light source, a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements on a frontal surface of an associated beam expander, and
a housing around the optical system
a housing around the optical systems
wherein the housing comprises a mouth opening covered by a closing member
having a mouth opening covered by a closing member
wherein, in front of the optical system, a raster arrangement of second light scattering element fills said mouth opening, and
wherein, in front of the optical systems, a second light scattering element is arranged that fills said mouth opening and comprising an arrangement of pyramids, and
wherein the beam expander and the first and second light scattering elements are made from a non-polarizing transparent material
the beam expanders and the first and second light scattering elements are made from a non-polarizing transparent material
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1- 15 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.
In re claim 1,
The limitation “a raster arrangement of second light scattering element” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how a singular “second light scattering element” could be arranged as a raster. As written, it is unclear if the second light scattering element is describing the entire arrangement, or if the second light scattering element is an individual component of the raster. As best understood, the limitation “a raster arrangement of second light scattering element” is being interpreted as an element who surface is comprised of a raster arrangement of second light scattering elements. Examiner notes that dependent claims (2-15) inherit the same deficiencies.
The term “a beam expander” is inconsistent with its accepted meaning i.e., an optical device that takes a beam of light and expand its width. As best understood, based on the specification, the “beam expander” claimed by Applicant does not expand the laser light but rather serves as a defined region or channel for the light to pass through. For the purposes of examination, as best understood, the limitation “a beam expander” will be interpreted as a region or channel in which light passes through. Examiner notes that dependent claims (2-15) inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 3, the limitation “wherein the fisheye lens is integral to the first scattering element”, is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what Applicant means by the phrase “integral to”. For instance, does “integral to” imply that the fisheye lens is crucial to the function of the first scattering element? or does it imply that the fisheye lens completes the first scattering element? Based on Applicant’s specification specifically, the use of the word “integral to” in relation to the fisheye lens [0039], Examiner is interpreting “wherein the fisheye lens is integral to the first scattering element” to mean that the fisheye lens is attached to or is a part of the first scattering element.
In re claim 5, the limitation “wherein said pyramids each have a quadratic base” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant means by “quadratic base” given that this is not an ART recognized term. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “wherein said pyramids each have a quadratic base” will be interpreted to mean that each pyramid must have a base with four sides.
In re claim 7, regarding the limitation “integral to”, see above In re claim 3.
In re claim 9,
The limitation “wherein the three optical systems have circular symmetrical shapes” is incorrect. Looking at Applicants FIG. 1 it can be seen that the optical system (i.e., beam expander and laser light source) is not entirely circular in shape. Specifically, the beam expander and light source are illustrated as having a conical and rectangular in shape respectively (FIG. 1). Therefore, as best understood, based on Applicant’s specification, the limitation “wherein the three optical systems have a circular symmetrical shape” is being interpreted as requiring the optical system to have a circular cross section.
The limitation “…and their centre points fall into an apex point of a regular triangle” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant means by “apex points of regular triangle”, given that 2-D shapes do not have “apex points” (Examiner notes that the term “apex” is used to refer to the highest vertex opposite a defined base). As best understood, based on Examiner FIG. 2 below, the limitation “and their centre points fall to an apex points of a regular triangle” is being interpreted to mean that together the center points of each optical system form a triangle where each center point is one corner (i.e., vertex) of the triangle.
Examiner notes that dependent claim 10 inherits the same deficiencies.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 11,
The limitation “further comprising a third optical system;” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how claim 11 can require a “third optical system” when the parent claim (claim 1) does not require a second optical system. Given that claim 10 already requires the device to have three optical systems Examiner believes the intent of claim 11 was to require the device to have four total optical systems. Therefore, for the purposes of examination claim 11 will be interpreted as follows: The device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second optical system; a third optical system; a fourth optical system, wherein the four optical systems have circularly symmetrical shapes and their centre points fall to an apex points of a square, and wherein adjacent beam expanders of the respective beam expanders of the four optical systems contact each other at respective single points.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the four optical systems have circularly symmetrical shapes”, see above (In re claim 9 (i)).
The limitation “and their centre points fall to an apex points of a square” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant means by “apex points of a square”, given that 2-D shapes do not have “apex points” (Examiner note that the term “apex” is used to refer to the highest vertex opposite a defined base). As best understood, based on Examiner FIG. 1 above, the limitation “and their centre points fall to an apex points of a square” is being interpreted to mean that together the center points of each optical system form a square, where each center point is one corner (i.e., vertex) of the square.
In re claim 15, the limitation “which comprises at least one LED light source emitting light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said laser light sources and/or wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”, is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how there can be multiple “laser light sources” when the parent claim (claim 1), only discloses a single laser light source (“a laser light source”). For the purposes of examination, as best understood the limitation, “which comprises at least one LED light source emitting light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said laser light sources and/or wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”, will be interpreted as requiring a single laser light source instead of multiple laser light sources.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2018/059526) in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0039473; herein referred to as Liu II).
In re claim 1, Liu discloses a *low power therapy device (abstract: “phototherapy device”; [0037]), which comprises:
an optical system (Fig. 5e: 40), wherein the optical system comprises:
a light source (21; [0041]: “LED module”);
a beam expander (Fig. 5e: middle rectangle) in front of said light source (Fig. 5e; regarding limitation “a beam expander”, see above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 1 (ii)));
a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements (41 on top surface of the middle rectangle) on a frontal surface of the beam expander (Fig. 5e; [0052]) and
a housing around the optical system (exterior walls of 40, shown in greater detail in Fig. 2),
wherein the housing comprises a mouth opening (top space of 40) covered by a closing member (Fig. 5e: top surface of 40 formed with raised structures; [0052]),
wherein, in front of the optical system, a second light scattering element ([0052]: “raised structures” on top surface of 40 (indicated by marker 41 on top of Fig. 5e) fills said mouth opening (Fig. 5e), and
wherein the beam expander and the first and second light scattering elements are made from a non-polarizing transparent material ([0048]: “diffusion model 40 can be made of a high transmission low absorption material including…PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) material”).
Liu lacks:
a laser light source.
Liu II discloses a therapy device (FIG. 1) that like Liu is capable of delivering low powered laser energy [0063] to a patient’s skin (40). Liu II further discloses the laser energy being generated by a radiation source (14). As discussed in Liu II, the radiation source could be any device capable of generating energy including a laser, a LED, a flashlamp, an ultrasound device, or a RF device [0050].
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 light source of Liu, to be a laser, as taught by Liu II. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the light source of Liu and laser of Liu II are functionally equivalent. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the light source (i.e., LED or laser) that would best meet their needs.
*Regarding the limitation “a low power laser therapy device” is it apparent that the laser therapy device of Liu is “low power” given that the laser therapy device is used to skin which can burn if exposed to too much light energy (Liu, [0037]). However, in so far as this is not explicitly stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser therapy device of Liu, to be a low power laser therapy device, as taught by Liu II. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent a patient’s skin from being damaged during phototherapy (Liu, [0037]).
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu)
wherein said arrangement of the first and second light scattering element comprises a raster arrangement of pyramids arranged in rows and columns (Fig. 5e; [0052]: “shape of the raised structure 41 can be pyramidal”).
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu)
wherein said pyramids have a quadratic base (Fig. 4; [0052]: “shape of the raised structure 41 can be pyramidal”; regarding the limitation “quadratic base” see above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 5)).
The proposed combination does not yield, -and their apex angles is between 85°and 95°.
Regarding the limitation “…and their apex angles is between 85°and 95°”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the apex angles of said pyramids be between 85°and 95°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 6, regarding the limitation “wherein a height of said pyramids is between 0.6 and 1.3 mm.”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a height of said pyramids be between 0.6 and 1.3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu) wherein the second light scattering element is integral to the closing member ([0052]: “raised structure 41 can be formed on the diffusion model…”; Examiner notes that the raised structure 41 is disposed on the top surface of 40, i.e., the closing member).
In re claim 8, regarding the limitation “wherein an axial distance between the first and second light scattering elements is between 1.5 to 2.5 times of a height of the pyramids.”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an axial distance between the first and second light scattering elements be between 1.5 to 2.5 times of a height of the pyramids, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 12, regarding the limitation “wherein a material of the first and second light scattering elements and/or of the beam expanders is polymethyl methacrylate.”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first and second light scattering elements and/or the beam expander out of polymethyl methacrylate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
In re claim 14, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu II)
wherein the laser light source is configured to emit light in an infrared range of wavelength ([0018]: “treatment device may provide radiation at a wavelength of 808 nm”; Examiner notes that infrared range is defined as wavelengths between 750 nm and 1 mm),
wherein the laser light source is preferably configured to emit light at 808nm ([0018]: “treatment device may provide radiation at a wavelength of 808 nm”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2018/059526) in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0039473; herein referred to as Liu II), in view of Sekiguchi et al. (JP 2017224462).
In re claim 2, the proposed combination does not yield wherein the optical system further comprises a fisheye lens positioned between the first scattering element and the second scattering element.
Sekiguchi discloses an analogous light emitting device focused on uniformly emitting light [0006]. Sekiguchi discloses achieving uniformity by placing a wide-angle lens (12) over a light source (combination of 3A, 3B, 3C) of the light emitting device [0005].
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 optical system of the proposed combination to include a fisheye lens, as taught by Sekiguchi. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure light emitted from the device is uniform in shape (Sekiguchi, ([0005, 0006]).
Regarding the limitation “…positioned between the first scattering element and the second scattering element”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed to try to position the fisheye lens on the first scattering element. A person of ordinary skill in the art would consider positioning the fisheye lens on the first scattering element since there are a finite number of locations on the optical system in which the fisheye lens could be placed. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “…a fisheye lens positioned between the first scattering element and the second scattering element.”
In re claim 3, see above (In re claim 2).
Claims 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2018/059526), in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0039473; herein referred to as Liu II), in view of Rózsa (WO 2019/211638; herein referred to as Rózsa II).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination does not yield
a second optical system,
a third optical system,
wherein the three optical systems have circularly symmetrical shapes and their centre points fall to an apex point of a regular triangle.
Rózsa II discloses an analogous low power laser therapy device (Fig. 1, Fig. 2), with four circularly shaped optical systems ([12a, 18a], [12b, 18b], [12c,18c], and [12d, 18d]), enclosed in a housing (Fig. 1; pg. 4, lines 34-pg. 5, line 1). As described in Rózsa II, the use of multiple optical systems orients a treatment light in such a way that causes an increase in both the penetration depth and size of the treatment area (Fig. 3, Fig. 4: 25; pg. 5 line 32- pg. 6 line 12). Rózsa II further discloses that the laser device could optionally include only three optical systems if desired. (pg. 6, lines 24-25).
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 laser therapy device of the proposed combination to have a second optical system and a third optical system, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification, to be able to use laser therapy device to treat conditions that require light to penetrate deep into the skin (pg. 2, lines 25-27; pg. 6, lines 13-16). Accordingly, such a modification would yield “…and their centre points fall into an apex point of a regular triangle”.
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Rózsa II)
wherein the three optical systems beam expanders (18a, 18b, 18c) comprise a common central portion (Fig. 2; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “…beam expanders comprise a common central portion” is being interpreted as requiring the beam expanders to be located in a common area.) and
wherein the three optical systems comprise a common body (Fig. 1; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “a common body” is being interpreted as a shared housing or structure that encloses all three optical systems).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Rózsa II) comprising:
a third optical system (12c, 18c);
a fourth optical system (12d, 18d),
wherein the four optical systems have
circularly symmetrical shapes (Fig. 1, Fig. 2; See above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 9 (i))) and
their centre points fall to an apex points of a square (Fig. 2; see above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 11 (iii))), and
wherein adjacent beam expanders of the respective beam expanders of the four optical systems contact each other at respective single points (Fig. 2; see darker “+” in middle which represents points at which said beam expanders touch).
For substantially the same reasons as discussed In re claim 9 above, 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 laser therapy device of the proposed combination to have four optical systems, as taught by Rózsa II.
In re claim 13, the proposed combination does not yield wherein an inner surface of the housing comprises a light reflecting layer.
Rózsa II further discloses the inner surface (21) of the housing being coated with a light reflective layer (pg. 5, line 1-2).
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 housing of the proposed combination to have a reflective inner surface, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification to help ensure that the light leaving the closing member is uniformly scattered (Rózsa II, pg. 5, lines 1-7).
In re claim 15, the proposed combination does not disclose
which comprises at least one LED light source emitting light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said laser light sources and/or
wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW.
Rózsa II further discloses arranging a LED light source between a laser light source (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d) of each optical system (pg. 4, lines 12-14). As discussed in Rózsa II, each LED light source serves to provide a visual indication that the laser light sources are functioning properly (pg. 4, lines 12-14).
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 laser therapy device of the proposed combination to comprise at least one LED light source emitting a light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said light sources, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have a visual indication that the laser light sources are on and functioning properly (pg. 4, lines 12-14 and pg. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”. Rózsa II further discloses each of the laser light sources preferably having a power of 500 mW (pg. 6, lines 20-21) because 500 mW is enough power to sufficiently treat large areas without overheating the device (pg. 6, lines 20-24).
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 power of each one of the laser light sources to be between 100 mW and 600 mW, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification because powers within this range are strong enough to treat large areas of the skin without causing the device to overheat (Rózsa II pg. 6, lines 20-24).
Examiner notes that although the limitation “wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW” is yielded by the proposed combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the power of each of the laser light sources be between 100 mW and 600 mW, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Guo et al. (CN-214912754-U) discloses a laser beauty device focused on improving spot uniformity (abstract). The laser beauty device comprises a light source (Fig. 10: 11), a light homogenizing tube (305) and a closing member (305).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796