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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarate et al (US 6,782,895, hereinafter “Zarate”) in view of Donitzky et al (WO 2013/097885 A1, hereinafter “Donitzky”, copy of document included with this Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Zarate discloses a treatment device for performing a light-based treatment operation on or to a subject (abstract), the treatment device comprising: a light source for generating light for performing the treatment operation (col 3, ln 66-col 4, ln 18; bulb 10); a dichroic filter arranged at a first angle with respect to incident light such that the incident light is separated into a transmitted light component and a reflected light component according to a cut-off wavelength of the dichroic filter (col 4, ln 56-col 5, ln 42; dichroic filter 45), wherein the transmitted light component is transmitted through the dichroic filter (col 4, ln 56-col 5, ln 42; transmission of light below 720 nm) and the reflected light component is reflected by the dichroic filter (col 4, ln 56-col 5, ln 42; reflection of unwanted wavelengths such as those between 720-1100 nm); a light exit window (10) arranged with respect to the dichroic filter (col 5, ln 29-42; col 6, ln 17-36) such that one of the transmitted light component and the reflected light component is emitted from the treatment device (col 5, ln 29-42) via the light exit window (col 5, ln 29-42); a beam dump (col 5, ln 29-42; function of mirror 50) configured and arranged with respect to the dichroic filter (col 5, ln 29-42) such that the other one of the transmitted light component and reflected light component is incident on the beam dump (col 5, ln 29-42) and absorbed by the beam dump (col 5, ln 29-42; col 6, ln 60-67); and a heat sink coupled to the beam dump dissipate heat from the beam dump (col 5, ln 29-42; col 6, ln 60-67, where the infrared light transmitted through mirror 50 strikes an internal heat dissipator that converts the light into heat which is removed via cooling air through holes in the heat dissipator).
Zarate discloses the claimed invention as detailed above, but does not explicitly disclose the dichroic filter is provided on a first surface of a solid dichroic prism or an internal surface in a solid dichroic cuboid. Donitzky is analogous art in regard to known light treatment methods (page 3, ln 1-13). Donitzky discloses it was known in the art to utilize a solid dichroic filter for reflecting or transmitting light as required by a treatment method (page 4, ln 1-36). Applied to the invention of Zarate, the features of Donitzky would provide a dichroic filter on a first surface of a solid dichroic prism or an internal surface in a solid dichroic cuboid as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Donitzky in the invention of Zarate, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of known methods for more efficient dichroic splitting of radiation, which may reduce the intensity of the output radiation used for treatment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: JP2020503119A (English translation included with this Office action) discloses pulsed laser skin treatment devices for laser-induced optical destruction of hair or skin tissue. The device has a light exit window to be placed against the surface to be treated during use, such as the skin. A feedback system is used to determine the state of contact between the light exit window and the surface. Disclosure to the use of filters including a dichroic filter on page 4, considered to be conventionally known uses of filters and means for routing light in skin treatment devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lindsey G Wehrheim whose telephone number is (571)270-5181. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 5 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
Lindsey G Wehrheim
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/LINDSEY G WEHRHEIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights