DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by Root et al. (US 2017/0239079 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Root teaches an apparatus for treating a human subject (treatment system 100 [0069, 0071-0072, 0075]), comprising:
an applicator configured to cool the subject’s skin (applicator 102 [0075]) and including a cup defining a tissue-receiving cavity (the applicator 102 comprises a cup 95 that defines a tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0084-0086, 0098]) and including a temperature-controlled surface (the temperature-controlled heat-exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0087]), at least one vacuum port (the cup 95 may include one or more vacuum ports 122 in fluid communication with the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0098]. Specifically, the vacuum ports 122 may be disposed along the bottom 262, sidewalls 260a-260b, or other location along the cup 95 [0096, 0098, FIGS. 6-7]), and air-egress features (the liner assembly 117 may comprise a liner 119 that is perforated to establish fluid communication between the vacuum port 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0072, 0085, 0098, 0133-0134]. Specifically, the perforations of the liner 119 are interpreted as the air-egress features [0066, 0071-0072, 0133-0134]) extending along the temperature-controlled surface to provide airflow paths to the at least one vacuum port for removing air between the subject’s skin and the cup while the at least one vacuum port provides a vacuum to draw the subject’s tissue toward the temperature-controlled surface (the liner assembly 117 comprises the perforated liner 119 that extends along the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0087, 0120]. Specifically, the perforated liner 119 is configured to establish fluid communication (e.g., airflow paths) between at least one vacuum port 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0066, 0071-0072, 0133-0134]. For example, the perforations of the liner 119 provides an opening or gap that allows for removing air located between the cup 95 and the tissue [0066, 0111, 0120, 0122]. Furthermore, a vacuum may be inserted through the perforations of the liner 119 and into the tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0134]. This allows the vacuum to pull the tissue into the applicator 102 [0072, 0134]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the applicator 102 is configured to hold the tissue in thermal contact with the temperature-controlled heat-exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0087, 0138-0139, claim 14]), and wherein the air-egress features include channels (the liner 119 comprises a plurality of perforations (e.g., holes) to establish airflow or vacuum pathways through the cup 95 [0066, 0071-0072, 0133-0134]).
Regarding claim 2, Root teaches wherein the cup and vacuum port are configured such that when a vacuum is applied the subject’s tissue substantially fills an entire volume of the tissue-receiving cavity except for small gaps created by the air-egress features formed on a surface of the cup (as stated previously above, the perforated liner 119 is configured to establish fluid communication (e.g., airflow paths) between at least one vacuum port 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0066, 0071-0072, 0133-0134]. For example, a vacuum is inserted through the perforations of the liner 119 and into the tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0134]. Furthermore, the vacuum can pull the tissue into the applicator 102 such that the tissue fills most or substantially all of the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0067, 0086, 0137]. Specifically, the tissue may occupy at least 70%, 80%, 90%, or 95% of the volume cavity [0067, 0086, 0137]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the perforations of the liner 119 provide an opening or gap that allows air to flow through the cup 95 and into the tissue [0066, 0111, 0122]).
Regarding claim 3, Root teaches a pressurization device in fluid communication with the tissue-receiving cavity via the at least one vacuum port ([0135-0136]); and a controller programmed to cause the pressurization device to operate to hold the subject’s skin in thermal contact with the temperature-controlled surface while the cup conductively cools the tissue (the pressurization device 123 is configured to hold the tissue in contact with the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0087, 0135-0136, 0144]. Meanwhile, the applicator 102 of the cup 95 is configured to cool the tissue [0075, 0135, 0137]).
Regarding claim 5, Root teaches a pressurization device configured to draw a sufficient vacuum to eliminate air gaps between the subject’s tissue and the temperature-controlled surface such that substantially no air gaps impair non-invasively cooling of the subject’s subcutaneous lipid-rich cells to a temperature lower than about 0°C (the pressurization device 123 is configured to vacuum the tissue into contact with the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 such that all of the skin surface overlies the heat exchanging surface 161 to minimize or avoid air pockets that impairs the cooling [0087, 0135-0137]. Furthermore, the heat-exchanging surface 161 may be cooled to a temperature less than a selected temperature (e.g., 0° C, −2° C, or −5° C) to cool the skin surface of the retained tissue [0138]).
Regarding claim 6, Root teaches wherein the air-egress features are configured to maintain airflow paths to the at least one vacuum port when the subject's tissue is operably received within the tissue-receiving cavity and a 12 inches Hg vacuum is drawn (as stated previously in claim 1, the liner assembly 117 may comprise a liner 119 that is perforated to establish fluid communication between the vacuum port 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0072, 0085, 0098, 0133-0134]. The Examiner respectfully submits that a 12 inches Hg vacuum is applied [0092]).
Regarding claim 7, Root teaches wherein the cup is configured to non-invasively cool the subject’s tissue (the applicator 102 of the cup 95 is configured to non-invasively cool the tissue [0063, 0075, 0085]), which is held in the tissue-receiving cavity ([0075, 0085]), an amount sufficient to be biologically effective in damaging and/or reducing subcutaneous lipid-rich cells in the subject’s tissue ([0076, 0139]).
Regarding claim 10, Root teaches wherein the air-egress features extend across most of a width and extend across most of a length of the tissue-receiving cavity (the liner assembly 117 comprises a perforated liner 119 which may cover the entirety or most of the tissue receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0119, 0121]).
Regarding claim 11, Root teaches wherein the air-egress features are a network of elongate ridges and/or channels (the liner 119 comprises a plurality of perforations (e.g., holes) to establish airflow or vacuum pathways through the cup 95 [0066, 0071-0072, 0133-0134]).
Regarding claim 12, Root teaches wherein each of the air-egress features includes a first end spaced apart from a mouth of the cup (as stated previously, the perforated liner 119 covers the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0119, 0121, FIG. 2]. Furthermore, the cup 95 comprises a contoured head 92 having a mouth 152 [0084 0103, FIG. 2, FIG. 9]. Specifically, the perforated liner 119 includes lateral or peripheral edges that does not contact the mouth 152 of the contoured head 92 [0119, FIG. 2, FIG. 9]. In other words, the perforated liner 119 is spaced apart from the mouth 152 of the contoured head 92 [0119, FIG. 2, FIG. 9]), a second end positioned proximate the at least one vacuum port (as stated previously, the perforated liner 119 covers the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0119, 0121, FIG. 2]. Specifically, the perforated liner 119 includes a center portion or end that establishes fluid communication between the vacuum port 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0072, 0085, 0098, 0133-0134]), and a main portion extending between the first and second ends and being dimensioned to allow thermal contact to be maintained between the subject’s skin and an area of the temperature-controlled surface surrounding the first end and the main portion (as stated previously, the perforated liner 119 covers the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0119, 0121, FIG. 2]. Specifically, the figure 2 illustrates the perforated liner 119 having a main portion that extends between the center portion and the peripheral edges [FIG. 2]. The Examiner further submits that the perforated liner 119 is configured to establish fluid communication (e.g., airflow paths) between at least one vacuum port 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0066, 0071-0072, 0133-0134]. For example, a vacuum is inserted through the perforations of the liner 119 and into the tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0134]. This allows the vacuum to pull the tissue into the applicator 102 [0072, 0134]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the applicator 102 is configured to hold the tissue in thermal contact with the temperature-controlled heat-exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0087, 0138-0139, claim 14]).
Regarding claim 13, Root teaches wherein the air-egress features spread outwardly from the central region of the cup (the perforated liner 119 may extend across the entire length of the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0119, 0121, FIG. 2]. In this case, figure 2 illustrates perforated liner 119 spreading outwardly from the center region of the heat exchanging surface 161 to the peripheral edges of the heat exchanging surface 161 [0121, FIG. 2]).
Regarding claim 15, Root teaches wherein the at least one vacuum port includes a plurality of vacuum ports each located at an end of a respective one of the air-egress features (the liner 119 may comprise holes or perforations that are configured to establish fluid communication between the vacuum ports 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0066, 0072, 0085, 0098, 0134]).
Regarding claim 16, Root teaches an apparatus for treating a human subject (treatment system 100 [0069, 0071-0072, 0075]), comprising:
an applicator configured to cool the subject’s tissue (applicator 102 [0075]) and including a cup having an interior surface at least partially defining a tissue-receiving cavity (the applicator 102 comprises a cup 95 that defines a tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0084-0086, 0098]), wherein at least a portion of the interior surface is temperature-controlled (the temperature-controlled heat-exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0087]), and a vacuum port extending through a central portion of the interior surface (the cup 95 may include one or more vacuum ports 122 in fluid communication with the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0098, FIG. 2]. For example, figure 2 illustrates a vacuum port 122 extending through a central portion of the heat-exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [FIG. 2]), wherein a topography of the interior surface is configured to form airflow paths extending between the vacuum port and a peripheral portion of the interior surface when the subject's tissue is operably received within the cavity (the perforated liner 119 may comprise holes or perforations that are configured to establish fluid communication between the vacuum ports 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0066, 0072, 0085, 0098, 0134]. Specifically, the perforated liner 119 may extend across the entire length of the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0119, 0121, FIG. 2]. In this case, figure 2 illustrates perforated liner 119 spreading outwardly from the center region of the heat exchanging surface 161 to the peripheral edges of the heat exchanging surface 161 [0121, FIG. 2]), the cup and vacuum port being configured such that when a vacuum is applied the subject’s tissue substantially fills an entire volume of the cup except for small gaps created by air-egress features formed on a surface of the cup (the cup 95 and the vacuum port 122 are configured such that when a vacuum is applied the subject’s tissue substantially fills an entire volume of the cup except for small gaps created by the perforated liner 119 formed on the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0066, 0098, 0121, 0135-0136]. The Examiner respectfully submits that vacuum may adjust the vacuum level to either eliminate the gaps or reduce the gap size (e.g., small gaps) between the perforated liner 119 and the subject’s tissue [0135-0135]. For example, the vacuum may be adjusted such that 95% of the skin tissue fills the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0135-0136]. Specifically, this leaves a small gap size of about 5% [0135-0136]).
Regarding claim 17, Root teaches airflow elements positioned along the interior surface and extending between the vacuum port and the peripheral portion (the perforated liner 119 may comprise holes or perforations that are configured to establish fluid communication between the vacuum ports 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 [0066, 0072, 0085, 0098, 0134]. Specifically, the perforated liner 119 may extend across the entire length of the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0071, 0085, 0119, 0121, FIG. 2]. In this case, figure 2 illustrates perforated liner 119 spreading outwardly from the center region of the heat exchanging surface 161 to the peripheral edges of the heat exchanging surface 161 [0121, FIG. 2]) and having heights sufficient to maintain the airflow paths when the subject’s skin is drawn against most of the interior surface (the perforated liner 119 is configured to maintain a small gap or airflow pathway while the subject’ skin tissue is vacuumed into the cup 95 [0066, 0135-0136]. As stated previously in claim 17, the vacuum may adjust the vacuum level to either eliminate the gaps or reduce the gap size (e.g., small gaps) between the perforated liner 119 and the subject’s tissue [0135-0135]. For example, the vacuum may be adjusted such that 95% of the skin is fills the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0135-0136]. Specifically, this leaves a small air flow pathway or gap size of about 5% [0135-0136]).
Regarding claim 18, Root teaches a method for treating a human subject (treatment system 100 [0069, 0071-0072, 0075]), comprising:
applying an applicator to the subject’s skin (applicator 102 [0075, 0085-0086, FIG. 2]);
drawing a vacuum in a tissue-receiving cavity of the applicator to draw the subject’s tissue toward a conductive surface of a temperature-controlled cup of the applicator to substantially fill an entire volume of the cup (the vacuum is drawn in tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 to draw to drawn the tissue towards a conductive or heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 of the applicator 102 to substantially fill an entire volume of the cup 95 [0066-0067, 0086, 0136-0137]) while air-egress features facing the tissue-receiving cavity maintain egress airflow paths for removing air located between the subject’s skin and the temperature-controlled cup (the perforated liner 119 is configured to establish fluid communication (e.g., airflow paths) between at least one vacuum port 122 and the tissue-receiving cavity 91 of the cup 95 [0066, 0071-0072, 0133-0134]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the perforations of the liner 119 provides an opening or gap that allows for removing air located between the cup 95 and the tissue [0066, 0111, 0120, 0122]); and
extracting heat from the subject’s tissue via the conductive surface to cool the tissue an amount sufficient to be biologically effective in selectively damaging and/or reducing the subject’s subcutaneous lipid-rich cells ([0139-0140]).
Regarding claim 19, Root teaches maintaining a sufficient vacuum to hold the subject’s skin in thermal contact with substantially all of the conductive surface facing the tissue-receiving cavity while extracting heat from the subject’s tissue ([0085, 0139, claim 18]).
Regarding claim 20, Root teaches drawing tissue into the tissue-receiving cavity such that substantially all of the subject’s skin located within the tissue-receiving cavity is in thermal contact with the conductive surface ([0067, 0086, 0136, claims 18-19]).
4. Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root et al. in view of Anderson et al. (US 2015/0223975 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Root teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Root teaches wherein regions of the temperature-controlled surface are adjacent to the air-egress features (the perforated liner 119 may be arranged on the cup 95 such that some portions of the heat exchanging surface 161 are exposed [0072, 0087, 0121]), and wherein the controller is programmed to cause the pressurization device to provide a sufficient vacuum to keep substantially all of each region in thermal contact with the subject’s skin (the pressurization device 123 is configured to hold the tissue in contact with the heat exchanging surface 161 of the cup 95 [0087, 0135-0136, 0144]).
However, Root does not explicitly teach wherein the regions of the temperature-controlled surface are located between adjacent air-egress features.
The prior by Anderson is analogous to Root, as they both teach an apparatus that is configured to cool the subject’s tissue ([abstract]).
Anderson teaches wherein the regions of the temperature-controlled surface are located between adjacent air-egress features (the metal contact plate 110 may comprise a high thermal effusivity to maintain a consistent temperature [0069, 0119] [0069, 0119]. Furthermore, the metal contact plate 110 comprises a plurality of distal contact surfaces 140 that can be convex or concave (e.g., curved) to better match the local shape of the skin tissue being treated [0067, 0127, 0134, FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11]. Specifically, the metal contact plate 110 may include one or more channels 910 (e.g., air-egress features) [0127, FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the concave distal surfaces 140 of the metal contact plate 110 extend between the channels 910 [FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11, 0022, 0067, 0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Root’s temperature-controlled surface to include regions that extend between adjacent air-egress features, as taught by Anderson. The advantage of such modification may improve the physical and thermal contact between the skin and metal surfaces (see paragraphs [0022, 0067, 0127, 0134] by Anderson).
Regarding claim 8, Root teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Root teaches wherein regions of the temperature-controlled surface are adjacent to the air-egress features (the perforated liner 119 may be arranged on the cup 95 such that some portions of the heat exchanging surface 161 are exposed [0072, 0087, 0121]).
Root does not explicitly teach wherein most of the temperature-controlled surface is located directly between the air-egress features.
However, Anderson teaches wherein most of the temperature-controlled surface is located directly between the air-egress features (the metal contact plate 110 may comprise a high thermal effusivity to maintain a consistent temperature [0069, 0119] [0069, 0119]. Furthermore, the metal contact plate 110 comprises a plurality of distal contact surfaces 140 that can be convex or concave (e.g., curved) to better match the local shape of the skin tissue being treated [0067, 0127, 0134, FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11]. Specifically, the metal contact plate 110 may include one or more channels 910 (e.g., air-egress features) [0127, FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the concave distal surfaces 140 of the metal contact plate 110 extend between the channels 910 [FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11, 0022, 0067, 0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Root’s temperature-controlled surface to between adjacent air-egress features, as taught by Anderson. The advantage of such modification may improve the physical and thermal contact between the skin and metal surfaces (see paragraphs [0022, 0067, 0127, 0134] by Anderson).
Regarding claim 9, Root teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Root does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a sum of areas of regions of the temperature-controlled surface located directly between air-egress features to a total area of the temperature-controlled surface is greater than 0.5.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the temperature-controlled surface is located directly between air-egress features (the metal contact plate 110 may comprise a high thermal effusivity to maintain a consistent temperature [0069, 0119] [0069, 0119]. Furthermore, the metal contact plate 110 comprises a plurality of distal contact surfaces 140 that can be convex or concave (e.g., curved) to better match the local shape of the skin tissue being treated [0067, 0127, 0134, FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11]. Specifically, the metal contact plate 110 may include one or more channels 910 (e.g., air-egress features) [0127, FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the concave distal surfaces 140 of the metal contact plate 110 extend between the channels 910 [FIGS. 8-9, FIG. 11, 0022, 0067, 0127]).
Root and Anderson do not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a sum of areas of regions of the temperature-controlled surface located directly between air-egress features to a total area of the temperature-controlled surface is greater than 0.5.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a ratio of a sum of areas of regions of the temperature-controlled surface located directly between air-egress features to a total area of the temperature-controlled surface that is greater than 0.5. The advantage of such modification may further improve the physical and thermal contact between the skin and metal and surfaces (see paragraphs [0022, 0067, 0127, 0134] by Anderson). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at the claimed ratio via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root et al.
Regarding claim 14, Root teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Root does not explicitly teach wherein each of the air-egress features has a height of about 1 mm to 2 mm, a width about 1 mm to 2 mm, and a length of at least 10 mm.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill n the art would have found it obvious to modify Root’s air-egress features (openings of the perforated liner 119 [0072, 0085, 0120-0121]) to have a high a height of about 1 mm to 2 mm, a width about 1 mm to 2 mm, and a length of at least 10 mm. The advantage of such modification may improve the fluid communication between the vacuum port and the tissue-receiving cavity ([0072, 0085, 0120-0121]). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at the claimed limitation via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Double Patenting
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 18-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,076,879 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite an apparatus comprising an applicator that is configured to cool a subject’s skin. Specifically, both sets of claims recite the applicator including a cup defining a tissue-receiving cavity and a temperature-controlled surface. Furthermore, both set of claims recite the applicator including a vacuum port, air-egress features, and a vacuum.
Although not exhaustive, a brief matching of the pending claims to those of U.S. Patent No. 11,076,879 B2 is provided below.
Application No. 18/963,233
U.S. Patent No. 11,076,879 B2
1
1, 15, 18, 20
2
2, 18
3
3, 4, 5
4
3, 4, 5
5
5
6
6
7
7, 20
8
8, 9
9
9
10
10, 23
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
18
17
18, 19
18
20
19
21
20
22
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights