DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the transducer module” should be amended to read –the detachable transducer module--. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/805,211 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332; hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 are both directed to ultrasound system comprising: a control unit, a graphical user interface comprising a touch screen display, one or more processors, a power supply and a driver circuit; a hand wand comprising: a latch, motor, communication cable between hand wand and control unit; transducer module comprising housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid and an acoustically transparent window, ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below skin surface with a treatment frequency, wherein the motor is configured to move the ultrasonic piezoelectric element within the house, a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector and operably coupled to the hand want at a circuit board interface, but U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 fail to explicitly sate that the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the window. Zanelli discloses that the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024] and fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of that the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window in the invention of U.S. Application No. 18/805,211, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focusing of the ultrasound for better treatment.
Claims 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/805,211 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332; hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 are both directed to ultrasound system comprising: a control unit, a graphical user interface comprising a touch screen display, one or more processors, a power supply and a driver circuit; a hand wand comprising: a latch; detachable transducer module comprising housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid and an acoustically transparent window, ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below skin surface with a treatment frequency, a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector and operably coupled to the hand want at a circuit board interface but U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 fail to explicitly sate that the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the window. Zanelli discloses that the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024] and fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of that the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window in the invention of U.S. Application No. 18/805,211, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focusing of the ultrasound for better treatment.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,430 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332’ hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,430 are both directed to ultrasound system comprising: a control unit, a graphical user interface comprising a touch screen display, processor, circuit with pin connector; a hand wand comprising: a latch, motor, communication cable between hand wand and control unit; transducer module comprising housing configured for comprising an acoustically transparent window, ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below skin surface with a treatment frequency, wherein the motor is configured to move the ultrasonic piezoelectric element within the house, a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector but copending Application No. 19/025,430 fails to explicitly state that the housing comprising an acoustic fluid. Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device housing comprising an acoustic fluid (see par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of housing comprising an acoustic fluid in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,430, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focused ultrasound treatment to the region of interest and to provide a leak free housing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,430 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332’ hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,430 are both directed to ultrasound system comprising: a control unit, a graphical user interface comprising a touch screen display, one or more processors, a power supply and a driver circuit; a hand wand comprising: a latch; detachable transducer module comprising housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid and an acoustically transparent window, ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below skin surface with a treatment frequency, a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector but copending Application No. 19/025,430 fails to explicitly state that the housing comprising an acoustic fluid. Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device housing comprising an acoustic fluid (see par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of housing comprising an acoustic fluid in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,430, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focused ultrasound treatment to the region of interest and to provide a leak free housing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/025,353. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,353 are both directed to an ultrasound treatment system comprising a hand wand configured for coupling a transducer module, wherein the hand wand comprises: a latch, an integrated receptacle comprising a pin connector, a motor; wherein the transducer module comprising housing with a fluid and window, a circuit board connected to the pin connector, an ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface with a treatment frequency, and wherein the motor is configured to move the ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element, and a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/025,353. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,353 are both directed to ultrasound system comprising: a control unit, a graphical user interface comprising a touch screen display, one or more processors, a power supply and a driver circuit; a hand wand comprising: a latch; detachable transducer module comprising housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid and an acoustically transparent window, ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below skin surface with a treatment frequency, and a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,353 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332’ hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,353 are both directed to an ultrasound treatment system comprising a hand wand configured for coupling a transducer module, wherein the hand wand comprises: a latch, an integrated receptacle comprising a pin connector, a motor; wherein the transducer module comprising housing with a fluid and window, a circuit board connected to the pin connector, an ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface with a treatment frequency, and wherein the motor is configured to move the ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element, a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector, but copending Application No. 19/025,353 fails to explicitly state that the housing comprising an acoustic fluid and transparent window. Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device housing comprising the housing comprising an acoustic fluid and transparent window (see par. [0023] and fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of the housing comprising an acoustic fluid and transparent window in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,353, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focused ultrasound treatment to the region of interest and to provide a leak free housing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,353 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332’ hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,353 are both directed to ultrasound system comprising: a control unit, a graphical user interface comprising a touch screen display, one or more processors, a power supply and a driver circuit; a hand wand comprising: a latch; detachable transducer module comprising housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid and an acoustically transparent window, ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below skin surface with a treatment frequency, a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector, but copending Application No. 19/025,353 fails to explicitly state that the housing comprising an acoustic fluid and transparent window. Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device housing comprising the housing comprising an acoustic fluid and transparent window (see par. [0023] and fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of the housing comprising an acoustic fluid and transparent window in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,353, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focused ultrasound treatment to the region of interest and to provide a leak free housing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt).
Regarding claim 1, Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device. Zanelli shows a system for ultrasound treatment (see fig. 2), comprising: a control unit (see par. [0025]) comprising: one or more processor configured to execute software (see fig. 6; par. [0027]); a power supply (see fig. 6; par. [0025]) and a driver circuit (see fig. 6; par. [0025]);a graphical user interface comprising a display (see par. [0025]), the graphical user interface configured to display at least one operating condition such as treatment parameters (see fig. 3 and par. [0025]), and a hand wand (see par. [0024]; fig. 4-5) comprising: a motor (see par. [0013], [0015], [0024]), and a transducer module (see fig. 5) comprising: a housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid (see par. [0024]; fig. 5) and an acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024]; fig. 5), a piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface with a treatment frequency (see par. [0024]; 106 in fig. 5), wherein the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window via the acoustic fluid in the housing (see fig. 5), and wherein the motor is configured to move the piezoelectric element within the housing to direct the ultrasound treatment in a sequence of spaced thermal lesions in a tissue below the skin surface (see [0003], [0023], [0026] and fig. 5).
But, Zanelli fails to explicitly state that the user interface is a touch screen display, and a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector, wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at a circuit board interface.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the user interface is a touch screen display (see par. [0056]); a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connection (see fig. 5A; par. [0069]), wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at a circuit board interface (see fig. 5A; par. [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the user interface is a touch screen display, a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connection, wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at a circuit board interface, in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more efficient Interaction, and to provide electrical connection between the hand wand and transducer module which would provide power to the transducer module.
Regarding claim 2, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute software to provide acoustic coupling detection between the transducer module and the skin surface (see par. [0022], [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the driver circuit comprises a radio frequency (RF) driver circuit (see fig. 6; par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows a cable to facilitate communication between the control unit and the hand wand (see fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows a status indicator light configured to indicate a system treatment state (see par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches a latch mechanism configured for removable attachment between the transducer module and the hand wand (see fig. 6A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a latch mechanism configured for removable attachment between the transducer module and the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 8, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the hand wand comprises an integrated receptacle configured for insertion of the transducer module (see fig. 6A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the hand wand comprises an integrated receptacle configured for insertion of the transducer module in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 9, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Bockenstedt teaches wherein the integrated receptacle comprises a pin connection for electrical connection between the transducer module and the hand wand (see par. [0041], [0048], [0049], [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the integrated receptacle comprises a pin connection for electrical connection between the transducer module and the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide electronic communication.
Regarding claim 12, Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device. Zanelli shows a system for ultrasound treatment (see fig. 2), comprising: a control unit (see par. [0025]) comprising: one or more processor configured to execute software (see fig. 6; par. [0027]); a power supply (see fig. 6; par. [0025]) and a driver circuit (see fig. 6; par. [0025]);a graphical user interface comprising a display (see par. [0025]), the graphical user interface configured to display at least one operating condition such as treatment parameters (see fig. 3 and par. [0025]), and a hand wand (see par. [0024]; fig. 4-5) comprising: a motor (see par. [0013], [0015], [0024]), and a transducer module (see fig. 5) comprising: a housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid (see par. [0024]; fig. 5) and an acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024]; fig. 5), a piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface with a treatment frequency (see par. [0024]; 106 in fig. 5), wherein the piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window via the acoustic fluid in the housing (see fig. 5).
But, Zanelli fails to explicitly state that the user interface is a touch screen display, and that the transducer module is detachable, and a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector, wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at a circuit board interface.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the user interface is a touch screen display (see par. [0056]), and that the transducer module is detachable (see par. [0038]), a circuit board (see par. [0069]), wherein the circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector (see fig. 5A and par. [0069]), wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at the circuit board interface (see fig. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the user interface is a touch screen display and that the transducer module is detachable, a circuit board, wherein the circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connector, wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at the circuit board interface, in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more Efficient Interaction, and be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module, and to provide electrical connection between the hand wand and transducer module which would provide power to the transducer module.
Regarding claim 13, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute software to provide acoustic coupling detection between the transducer module and the skin surface (see par. [0022], [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the hand wand comprises an integrated receptacle configured for insertion of the detachable transducer module (see fig. 6A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the hand wand comprises an integrated receptacle configured for insertion of the transducer module in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 15, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Bockenstedt teaches wherein the integrated receptacle comprises a pin connection for electrical connection between the transducer module and the hand wand (see par. [0041], [0048], [0049], [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the integrated receptacle comprises a pin connection for electrical connection between the transducer module and the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide electronic communication.
Regarding claim 16, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the driver circuit comprises a radio frequency (RF) driver circuit (see fig. 6; par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches a latch mechanism configured for removable attachment between the detachable transducer module and the hand wand (see fig. 6A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a latch mechanism configured for removable attachment between the transducer module and the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2005/0033201; hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state a foot switch electrically connected to the control unit.
Takahashi discloses ultrasound surgical system and teaches state a foot switch electrically connected to the control unit configured for operation of piezoelectric element (fig. and par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a foot switch electrically connected to the control unit in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Takahashi, to provide an easy way to control the ultrasound module while the physician can use both hands to perform treatment.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Gliklich et al. (US 2007/0032784; hereinafter Gliklich).
Regarding claim 10-11, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state the treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz and focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz (see par. [0016], [0032]) and focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface (see par. [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz and focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able to safely treat layers beneath the dermal layer for reducing signs of aging.
Regarding claim 19-20, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state the treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz and focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz (see par. [0016], [0032]) and focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface (see par. [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz and focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able to safely treat layers beneath the dermal layer for reducing signs of aging.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to specification has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the specification.
The previous claim objection to claims 14, 15 and 18 has been with drawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) to claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) to claims 2, 10, 11, 13. 19 and 20 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/28/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s on pages 8-9, with respect to prior art rejection of independent claims, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that combined invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt does disclose all the claim limitations set forth in independent claims 1 and 12, particularly a circuit board configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connection, wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at a circuit board interface; wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the circuit board interface and latch of the hand wand, and wherein the removable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via operation of the latch.
The examiner notes that prior art Bockenstedt does teach a circuit board (see 28 in fig. 5A; par. [0069]) configured for direct electrical connection to a pin connection (see 24 or 40 in fig. 5A; par. [0069]), wherein the circuit board is configured to be operably coupled to the hand wand at a circuit board interface (see fig. 5A; par. [0069]); wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the circuit board interface and latch of the hand wand (see par. [0038] and fig. 5A, 6A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Randall (US 2008/0194960) discloses a removable transducer module (see fig. 3) and circuit board (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights