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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “controlling the switch at a frequency in the range 100 kHz to 300 kHz” and the claim also recites “for example 150kHz to 300kHz, for example 150kHz to 250kHz” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, the language of claim 2 will be analyzed and searched for as if the limitation only reads “controlling the switch at a frequency in the range 100 kHz to 300 kHz,” as this is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the indefinite language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Owens (US Patent No 20120010684).
Regarding claim 1, Owens teaches a hair treatment device (dermatologic treatment device 100, [0055]) comprising: an intense pulsed light, IPL, lamp (see flash lamp 112, [0056]); a drive circuit for driving the IPL lamp with pulses of energy with first duration (see a drive circuit 422 which provides energy to drive the flash lamps 112 to emit light pulse sequences, [0074]), wherein the drive circuit comprises an ignition unit (trigger circuit 420, [0074]) and a main storage capacitor (control circuit 424 includes main capacitor elements, [0078]); a switch in series with the IPL lamp (power switching element 1508 in series with the flash lamp, [0100]); and a controller for controlling the switch at a frequency in the range 50 kHz to 500 kHz thereby to provide pulsed delivery of current to the IPL lamp, during at least a portion of the pulses of energy (see from [0088], in which the drive circuit 422 in communication with the control circuit 424 controls the switching elements such that the flash lamps oscillate the energy delivery to contain a pulsed frequency between 50-100kHz, thereby encompassing the claimed range), with current delivery pulses of a second duration shorter than the first duration (see for example the fig 8 and 9, in which the first flash pulses occur in a duration of about 7ms whereas a second pulse duration phase occurs in about 3ms, thereby making the second duration smaller), wherein the controller is configured to provide pulsed delivery of current to the IPL lamp during a first portion of the pulses of energy (see a drive circuit 422 which provides energy to drive the flash lamps 112 to emit light pulse sequences for a first portion, [0074]) and to provide continuous delivery of current during a last portion of the pulses of energy (see from the fig 9, in which the secondary portion maintains a continuous and constant current, see also [0074], which describes how after the high density light pulses occur, then a low density current is maintained afterwards for the operation of the device 100).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the indefinite claim language as interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1, wherein the controller is for controlling the switch at a frequency in the range 100 kHz to 300 kHz (see from [0088], in which the drive circuit 422 in communication with the control circuit 424 controls the switching elements such that the flash lamps oscillate the energy delivery to contain a pulsed frequency between 50-100kHz, thereby overlapping the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1 wherein the first duration is in the range 5 ms to 10 ms (the individual first pulse durations occur between about 3-8ms, [0013], thereby overlapping the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1,wherein the controller is configured to adjust the frequency of the control of the switch over time during the pulses of energy (see from [0088], in which the drive circuit 422 in communication with the control circuit 424 controls the switching elements such that the flash lamps oscillate the energy delivery to contain a pulsed frequency over time).
Regarding claim 5, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of the control of the switch over time during the pulses of energy (see from [0075], in which there is a detector 416 which dynamically senses and detects the voltage generated and voltage output as to obtain the duty cycle information where it is then in communication with the control circuit 424 to adjust the lamp pulses in response to the referenced duty cycle).
Regarding claim 7, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1, further comprising a diode in parallel with the IPL lamp with the anode of the diode connected to a low voltage terminal of the IPL lamp and the cathode of the diode connected to a high voltage terminal of the IPL lamp (see the diode 1512 in parallel with the flash lamp 112, [0100], in which it can be seen from the circuit diagram of fig 15 that the anode is connected to the low voltage terminal and the cathode to the high voltage terminal).
Regarding claim 8, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 7, further comprising a secondary capacitor in parallel with the IPL lamp (see from [0098] as well as seen in fig 15 in which there may be a variety of capacitors in the power circuit, some of those being in parallel with the flash lamp 112).
Regarding claim 9, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 8, wherein the secondary capacitor has a capacitance below 1% of the capacitance of the main capacitor (see for example the fig 15 of Owens which discloses a main capacitor of 22uF and a parallel capacitor of 1000pF, therefore the secondary capacitor contains 0.0045% the capacitance and falls below 1%).
Regarding claim 10, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1, further comprising a diode and a secondary capacitor in series with each other and together in parallel with the IPL lamp (see from the circuit diagram of fig 15 in which the secondary capacitor is in series with the diode 1512 and parallel with the flash lamp 112), and an inductor between a high voltage terminal of the IPL lamp and a junction between the diode and the secondary capacitor (see from [0100], in which the electrical energy is passed through from the switch to the high voltage terminal inductor and the diode of the circuit in order to deliver energy to the flash lamps 112).
Regarding claim 12, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1, wherein the IPL lamp comprises a flash lamp with a fluence below 6.5 J/cm2 (see [0013], in which the fluence may fall between 5-10 J/cm2 thereby teaching below 6.5).
Regarding claim 13, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1, further comprising a current sensor and/or a light intensity sensor for providing a feedback signal to the controller (current sensing resistor 1514 that communicates with the control circuit 424, [0100]).
Regarding claim 14, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configurable to operate the device in first and second modes, a first mode with said current delivery pulses during said pulses of energy (see a drive circuit 422 which provides energy to drive the flash lamps 112 to emit light pulse sequences for a first portion, [0074]), and a second mode with delivery of continuous current during said pulses of energy (see from the fig 9, in which the secondary portion maintains a continuous and constant current, see also [0074], which describes how after the high density light pulses occur, then a low density current is maintained afterwards for the operation of the device 100).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens (US Patent No 20120010684) in view of Cheng (US Patent No 20230349780) .
Regarding claim 6, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 1.
Owens does not teach wherein the controller is configured to increase the duty cycle from a first value in the range 20% to 40% to a second value in the range 40% to 70% over time during the pulses of energy.
However, the analogous light source treatment device which is taught by Cheng does disclose a control system in which it is configured to increase the duty cycle from a first value in the range 20% to 40% to a second value in the range 40% to 70% over time during the pulses of energy (see from Cheng [0093], which describes how the control system may active and contain a duty cycle of pulsing power to the light source which may start at a duty cycle of approximately 25% and may be adjusted to a duty cycle of approximately 50%, thereby containing values within the stated ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the control system of the hair treatment device taught by Owens, with that of the specific duty cycle control taught by Cheng as to increase the power delivered to the pulsed light source over time to continue to deliver more treatment energy over time, as taught by Cheng, [0093].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens (US Patent No 20120010684) in view of Shinmen (US Patent No 20080211423) .
Regarding claim 11, Owens teaches the hair treatment device of claim 10, wherein the secondary capacitor has a capacitance below 1% of the capacitance of the main capacitor (see for example the fig 15 of Owens which discloses a main capacitor of 22uF and a parallel capacitor of 1000pF, therefore the secondary capacitor contains 0.0045% the capacitance and falls below 1%)
Owens does not teach that the inductor has an inductance in the range 1 mH to 100 mH.
However, having flash lamps which contain circuit inductors that have inductance in the range of 1mH to 100mH are an obvious design choice and well known in the art. See for example the analogous flash discharge lamp system taught by Shinmen which discloses a circuit system that contains inductance levels ranging from 30umH to 300mH, [0038], thereby encompassing the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the hair treatment circuit system taught by Owens with that of the specific inductance metrics disclosed by Shinmen, as they are another known inductance in the art in use with pulse lamps, as well as allowing for the better control of the electric current flow to operate the pulse lamp more effectively, as taught by Shinmen, [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M BROWN whose telephone number is (703)756-4534. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00pm EST, Mon-Fri, alternating Fridays off.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/KYLE M. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights