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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11, the phrase “… to one or two modes” should read “… to one of two modes” since all references to the modes in both the claims and specification refer to alternative modes (i.e. not two modes simultaneously used), i.e. claim 19 appears to clearly have a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is also objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “the method comprising: …” but then again line 8 recites “the method comprising the steps of: …” It appears that line 8 should be deleted, since the steps recited prior to line 8 are also steps that are part of the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/0109052 A1 to Grenon et al. (hereinafter “Grenon ‘052”) in view of US 2008/0114424 A1 to Grenon et al. (hereinafter “Grenon ‘424”) in view of US 2013/0110101 A1 to Van Valen et al. (hereinafter “Van Valen”).
Regarding Claims 19 and 21, Grenon ‘052 teaches a method of protecting one or more of a patient’s ocular, periocular and circumocular tissues (see portions below addressing the shield) while treating the patient (see e.g. the abstract and Paras. 4-5) by an application of light energy (see e.g. abstract and Paras. 50, 56, 57; concerning light and/or laser specifically, see “laser” and “light” mentioned throughout the disclosure, e.g. in Paras. 50-52, 54, 62 and 71), the method comprising:
providing a handpiece having a longitudinal axis (see FIGS. 3A-4C) and a light energy device (see e.g. “means for heating 270” in Para. 57 and FIG. 4C; concerning light specifically, see “laser” and “light” mentioned throughout the disclosure, e.g. in Paras. 50-52, 54, 62 and 71) that project light energy along the axis at a distal end thereof (see 270 in FIG. 4C);
providing a shield configured to be in contact with at least an eyelid of the patient (see annotated FIGS. 4A-C below);
placing the shield in contact with at least the patient’s eyelid (see e.g. FIG. 4C);
prior to applying light energy to one or more of the ocular or the periocular or the circumocular tissues, [using] a mode wherein the distal end of the light energy device is in a contacting position (seen in e.g. FIG. 4C) to contact the anterior surface of the eyelid with the distal end of the handpiece prior to applying light energy to the anterior surface of the eyelid (see e.g. FIG. 4C);
applying light energy to one or more of the ocular, the periocular or the circumocular tissues by activating the light energy device when in the [contacting] mode (see e.g. the abstract, Paras. 50 and 56-57); and
wherein the ocular, periocular and circumocular tissues are protected during treatment (see e.g. the discussion of the shield above, and also the modification in view of Grenon ‘424 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grenon ‘052 fails to specify that the shield is “comprised of a thermally insulative material.” Another reference, Grenon ‘424, teaches a similar device including a shield comprised of a thermally insulative material to protect the eye from heat applied to the eyelids (see e.g. Para. 143). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Grenon ‘052 to construct the shielding extension from a thermally insulative material, as taught by Grenon ‘424, because this would help protect the eye from the heat being applied to the eyelid.
Grenon ‘052 as modified above fails to specify that the light delivery could be accomplished in both a contact mode and a non-contact mode. Another reference, Van Valen, teaches a similar device for applying light to the meibomian gland, and teaches that light delivery can be accomplished either in a contact mode or a non-contact mode (see e.g. Para. 42: “The spot size can vary, such as for instance from about 200 microns (e.g. via a handpiece with a tip) to about 30 mm (e.g., via a non-contact mode or a deep tissue handpiece) …” and Para. 47: “… touch-tip and/or slightly-spaced (e.g., 2-5 mm away from target) technologies and techniques …” and Para. 74: “… The treatment energy beam can be completed by contact or non-contact of the laser energy …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Grenon ‘052 to provide both a contact mode and a non-contact mode for the light energy delivery, as taught in Van Valen, because it would enable a greater range of possible treatments and increase the overall versatility of the device and method.
Regarding Claims 20 and 22, see “laser” and “light” mentioned throughout the disclosure, e.g. in Paras. 50-52, 54, 62 and 71 of Grenon ‘052.
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/346,254. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JOHN R DOWNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
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.
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights