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 § 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 12 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.
Claim 12 is unclear. Specifically it is unclear how the first signal can comprise a change rate of an operation voltage and/or operation current. Claim 2 previously defines the first signal as representing the sliding speed information of the tip contacting with the skin. It is unclear how a signal that is measuring/representing the sliding speed can also include information/instruction to change rate of an operation voltage and/or operation current. In other words the signal is a speed/velocity signal, not an instruction signal. As best understood by Applicant’s disclosure, it appears Applicant is attempting to claim the change rate of an operation voltage/current is changed in response to the measured first signal.
The same issue is present with regard to the second signal limitations.
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.
(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, 2, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Youngquist et al. (US 2019/0357976 A1).
Youngquist discloses a radiation based dermatological treatment system and method comprising; controlling a high frequency treatment device based on a pressure-sensitive sensor (e.g. paragraph 119 discloses a pressure sensor, paragraph 118 details the sensors may be used by the control system to control the treatment level, paragraph 11 details the treatment device may be an RF or microwave irradiation source which is high frequency), wherein the high frequency device comprises a treatment tip configured to contact skin and transmit high frequency energy to the skin (e.g. paragraph 11), the pressure sensor is provided at the treatment tip (e.g. Fig. 1 shows sensors 26 are located at the tip 42 of the treatment device), obtaining a contact signal collected by the pressure sensor, wherein the contact signal is generated when the treatment tip contacts the skin (e.g. paragraph 119, where it is considered that there must inherently be a signal that is fed to the control system as disclosed in paragraph 118), determining a contact condition between the treatment tip and the skin according to the contact signal to control the high frequency treatment device to output an operation power and/or an operation frequency (e.g. paragraphs 118 and 119).
With regard to claim 2, Youngquist discloses the contact signal comprises a first signal and a second signal, the first signal represents sliding speed information of the treatment tip contacting the skin (e.g. paragraph 119 explicitly details a sensor for determining the speed, rate, or velocity of device 10 moving (“gliding”) across the skin), and the second signal represents pressing force information of the treatment tip (e.g. paragraph 119, “one or more pressure sensor for detecting the pressure of device 10 pressed against the skin”).
With regard to claim 13-14, Youngquist discloses a control system as seen in Fig. 2, including memory, a processor, and computer program is configured to control the high-frequency treatment device based on the pressure sensitive sensor (e.g. paragraphs 117-118) . Youngquist discloses the system is configured to receive and transmit a contact signal outputted by the pressure-sensitive sensor of the treatment tip, the control module is electrically connected to the feedback module and the treatment tip, and the control module is configured to receive a contact signal to control the output module to output an operation power and/or an operation frequency to the treatment tip (e.g. paragraph 117-118).
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.
Claim(s) 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youngquist as applied above.
With regard to claims 3-11, Youngquist explicitly discloses a system to adjust output for factors such as the glide speed, contact, and pressure of the hand unit against the skin of the patient as discussed above. However, Youngquist fails to explicitly teach the specific conditions for which output would be adjusted. Specifically Youngquist fails to teach the limitations of claims 3-11 as set forth below;
With regard to claim 3, Youngquist even discloses a dwell sensor 216 indicating the device is stationary (e.g. paragraph 119, Fig. 2).Youngquist fails to teach, wherein the determining the contact condition between the treatment tip and the skin according to the contact signal, to control the high-frequency treatment device to output the operation power and/or the operation frequency to the treatment tip, further comprises: in response to that a value corresponding to the first signal is less than a first preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in static contact with the skin, outputting a first parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system/method of Youngquist with adjusting the operation power and/or operation frequency to the treatment tip and in response to a value indicating the treatment tip is in static contact with the skin since such a modification would be in line with the spirit of Youngquist’s invention and purpose of adjusting the therapy to the patient based on the movement or lack of movement of the handpiece.
With regard to claim 4, Youngquist fails to teach, wherein the determining the contact condition between the treatment tip and the skin according to the contact signal, to control the high-frequency treatment device to output the operation power and/or the operation frequency to the treatment tip further comprises: in response to that a value corresponding to the first signal is greater than a first preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in dynamic contact with the skin, outputting a second parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system/method of Youngquist with wherein the determining the contact condition between the treatment tip and the skin according to the contact signal, to control the high-frequency treatment device to output the operation power and/or the operation frequency to the treatment tip further comprises: in response to that a value corresponding to the first signal is greater than a first preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in dynamic contact with the skin, outputting a second parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device since such a modification would would be in line with the spirit of Youngquist’s invention and purpose of adjusting the therapy to the patient based on the movement or lack of movement of the handpiece.
With regard to claims 5-6, Youngquist fails teach;
“in response to that the value corresponding to the first signal is greater than the first preset threshold and less than a second preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in contact with the skin at a first sliding speed, outputting a third parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device.”
“in response to that the value corresponding to the first signal is greater than a second preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in contact with the skin at a second sliding speed, outputting a fourth parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device.”
As discussed above, Youngquist is entirely focused with adjusting output levels of therapy in response to contact and slide speed of the handpiece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system and method of Youngquist with using various thresholds in order to program the system to adjust therapy based on the sliding speed of the handpiece.
With regard to claim 7, Youngquist discloses the invention as claimed including at least one embodiment where the system updates on a continuous manner based on contact and displacement of the handpiece as set forth in Fig. 49 which shows a flow chart loop where the system is continuously scanning and updated contact and displacement feedback. It is the Examiner’s position that Youngquist as modified would read on the claimed limitation of “in response to that the value corresponding to the first signal is greater than the first preset threshold, and the value corresponding to the first signal changes continuously, an output power of the high-frequency treatment device changes continuously along with the change of the value corresponding to the first signal.”
With regard to claim 8, Youngquist discloses in response to that a value corresponding to the second signal is less than a third preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip does not effectively contact with the skin, outputting a fifth parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device (e.g. paragraphs 549-554 discusses interruption of the radiation based on contact sensors).
With regard to claim 9, Youngquist discloses the invention as claimed but fails to explicitly teach in response to that a value corresponding to the second signal is greater than a third preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in static contact with the skin, outputting a first parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device. As discussed above, Youngquist is entirely focused with adjusting output levels of therapy in response to contact and slide speed of the handpiece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system and method of Youngquist with using various thresholds, such as a threshold indicating the handpiece is in static contact, in order to program the system to adjust therapy to an appropriate level.
With regard to claim 10-11, Examiner considers the limitations of these claims to be various combinations of the previous limitations. As discussed above, Youngquist fails to explicitly teach these various conditions; however Youngquist is unequivocally focused on adjustment of therapy based on sensor feedback including contact sensors and slide speed sensors. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system and method of Youngquist with
“determining whether a value corresponding to the second signal is less than a third preset threshold, if the value corresponding to the second signal is less than the third preset threshold, which indicates that the treatment tip does not effectively contact with the skin, outputting a fifth parameter to the treatment tip, if the value corresponding to the second signal is not less than the third preset threshold, executing a next step by the high-frequency treatment device; and determining whether a value corresponding to the first signal is less than a first preset threshold, if the value corresponding to the first signal is less than the first preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in static contact with the skin, outputting a first parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device, if the value corresponding to the first signal is not less than the first preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in dynamic contact with the skin, and outputting a second parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device.”
and
“in response to that the value corresponding to the second signal is greater than the third preset threshold, and the value corresponding to the first signal is greater than the first preset threshold, determining whether the value corresponding to the first signal is less than the second preset threshold, if the value corresponding to the first signal is less than the second preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in contact with the skin at a first sliding speed, outputting a third parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device, if the value corresponding to the first signal is not less than the second preset threshold which indicates that the treatment tip is in contact with the skin at a second sliding speed, outputting a fourth parameter to the treatment tip by the high-frequency treatment device; wherein the second preset threshold is greater than the first preset threshold, and the second sliding speed is greater than the first sliding speed.”
Such a modification would provide the system and method of Youngquist with explicitly adapting the sliding speed and contact pressure of the system to be used to provide efficient treatment to the patient while adjusting for parameters to ensure the proper treatment.
With regard to claim 12, Examiner has interpreted the claim limitation to be attempting to claim the first signal and second signal results in a change in operation voltage or current and operation current. As discussed above, Youngquist at least discloses interrupting treatment in response to lack of contact (second signal) which would be a change in the current/voltage. Additionally, as discussed above, Youngquist discloses adjusting output based on the sensed conditions such as sliding speed (first signal). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the voltage/current based on the first signal since the slide speed of the handpiece would effect the effectiveness of treatment and if the handpiece is moving at a faster rate then the output current/voltage would need to increase to deliver the same amount of energy over time, and conversely, if the handpiece were moving slower, the voltage/current would need to decrease in order to deliver the appropriate amount of energy over time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ebbers et al. (US 2021/0085967 A1) discloses the use of a sensor to detect the movement speed of the applicator.
Slayton et al. (US 2024/0269490 A1) discloses the use of sensors to determine a speed of movement over a user’s body and generate alerts based on the detected speed.
Przybyszewski (US 9,161,802 B2) discloses use of pressure sensors for detecting contact of an applicator with a user’s body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A STOKLOSA whose telephone number is (571)272-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930AM-530PM.
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, Jonathan Teixeira-Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights