DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections have been obviated by amendments to the specification and by Applicant’s persuasive arguments. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been obviated by the amendments to the claims. The previously-held claim objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further review, there are new claim objections made. Please see claim objections hereinbelow.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are largely persuasive, and most of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been obviated by claim amendments. However, there are still outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections that have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Please see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections hereinbelow.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been obviated by amendments to the claim 15. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation section from the 03/16/2026 Non-Final Rejection is carried over to this current Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 13-14: “from an annotation of the audio signal flash sound information” should be changed to “from an annotation of the audio signal, flash sound information”. Please add comma.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 12-13: “from an annotation of the audio signal flash sound information” should be changed to “from an annotation of the audio signal, flash sound information”. Please add comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-9, 13, and 18 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 8 recites the limitation “a flash sound” in line 14, whereas a flash sound was already introduced in claim 8 (line 4). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different flash sound. Consider changing to “the flash sound”.
The limitation “temporal information of flash sounds generated by the treatment device per light pulse” renders claim 8 (lines 16-17) indefinite. It is unclear how this limitation connects to the limitation preceding it, as it appears to be floating. Is the temporal information part of what is being derived (line 13)? Consider potentially changing this limitation to “wherein temporal information of flash sounds is generated by the treatment device per light pulse”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “flash sounds” in line 17, whereas flash sounds was already introduced in claim 8 (line 15). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different flash sounds. Consider changing to “the flash sounds”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “one or more characteristic features” in line 21, whereas one or more characteristic features was already introduced in claim 8 (line 18). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different one or more characteristic features. Consider changing to “the one or more characteristic features”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a flash sound” in line 13, whereas a flash sound was already introduced in claim 13 (line 4). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different flash sound. Consider changing to “the flash sound”.
The limitation “temporal information of flash sounds generated by the treatment device per light pulse” renders claim 13 (lines 15-16) indefinite. It is unclear how this limitation connects to the limitation preceding it, as it appears to be floating. Is the temporal information part of what is being derived (line 13)? Consider potentially changing this limitation to “wherein temporal information of flash sounds is generated by the treatment device per light pulse”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “flash sounds” in line 16, whereas flash sounds was already introduced in claim 13 (line 14). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different flash sounds. Consider changing to “the flash sounds”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “one or more characteristic features” in line 20, whereas one or more characteristic features was already introduced in claim 8 (line 17). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different one or more characteristic features. Consider changing to “the one or more characteristic features”.
*Claims 9 and 18 are rejected due to their dependency on rejected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (namely Boamfa, et al. (EP3838339 – cited on IDS), Liu, et al. (WO2019/079972 – cited on IDS), and Verghese, et al. (US 2021/0128939 – cited on IDS)) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 13 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, an apparatus/method configured to be used with a treatment device configured to perform a treatment operation on a body part of a subject, wherein the treatment device is configured to apply light pulses to skin of the body part to perform the treatment operation and to generate a flash sound per light pulse generated by the treatment device, the apparatus/method comprising
a processing unit/method configured to
detect, per audio segment, if the audio segment comprises a flash sound generated by the treatment device per light pulse by applying a trained algorithm or computing system that has been/is trained on a plurality of audio segments each including one or more of the characteristic features to detect flash sounds generated by the treatment device per light pulse in the audio segments.
The Examiner notes that Verghese is directed to analogous art and teaches that feedback signal may comprises sound generated by the focused pulsed light beam, the feedback system comprise a device for detecting the sound and the feedback system is further for determining the state of contact from one or more characteristics of the sound (Par. [0033]). However, Verghese does not teach the indicated limitations of the independent claims, and particularly does not teach applying or training an algorithm or computing system on a plurality of audio segments each including one or more of the characteristic features to detect flash sounds generated by the treatment device per light pulse in the audio segments.
No other prior art reference could be found that teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claims 1 and 12. Due to their dependency on independent claims 1 and 12, instant claims 2-11 and 13-15 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Therefore, in view of the prior art and its deficiencies, the claimed invention as a whole is rendered novel and non-obvious, and thus, is allowable as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Specifically, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claims 8-9, 13, and 18 must be overcome. Please see rejections hereinabove.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights