DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) is being referred to “movement mechanism’ (see par. [0067] of the PG Pub. version of the specification) and “motion mechanism” (see par. [0070] of the Pg. Pub. version of the specification). Throughout the specification, the mechanism 400 for directing ultrasonic treatment being referred to as “movement mechanism” and “motion mechanism”. The examiner suggests to amend the specification to recite “movement mechanism” from “motion mechanism” to be consistent with the specification and figure 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the transducer module” should be amended to recite “the detachable transducer module” to be consistent with claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the transducer module” should be amended to recite “the detachable transducer module” to be consistent with claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the transducer module” should be amended to recite “the detachable transducer module” to be consistent with claim 12. 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, 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, 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 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, 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. Furthermore, the claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/025,353 is narrower than claim 1 of current application.
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. Furthermore, the claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/025,353 is narrower than claim 12 of current application.
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, 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, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “wherein the motor is configured to move the piezoelectric element with the housing to direct the ultrasound treatment” in lines 19-20 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does discloses that the motor is configured to move the piezoelectric element within the housing, but the specification does not disclose that the motor is configured to move the piezoelectric element with the housing.
Claims 2, 10-11, 13 and 19-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “a transducer module” in lines 2-3 is indefinite because it is unclear if this transducer module is the same transducer module that is already recited in claim 1 or separate one.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “treatment frequency” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if this treatment frequency is the same treatment frequency that is already recited in claim 1 or different.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “a depth” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if this depth is the same depth that is already recited in claim 1 or different.
Regarding claim 13, the claim limitation “a transducer module” in lines 2-3 is indefinite because it is unclear if this transducer module is the same datable transducer module that is already recited in claim 12 or separate one.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitation “treatment frequency” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if this treatment frequency is the same treatment frequency that is already recited in claim 12 or different.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation “a depth” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if this depth is the same depth that is already recited in claim 12 or different.
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.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the user interface is a touch screen display (see par. [0056]).
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, in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more Efficient Interaction.
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.
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].
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, 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.
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 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 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 double patent rejections over U.S. Patent No. 10,537,304, U.S. Patent No. 11,123,039, U.S. Patent No. 11,723,622, U.S. Patent No. 12,102,473, and copending Application No. 19/025,251 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the clams.
The previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f) for claim element “movement mechanism” has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
The examiner has maintained the previous object to specification the mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) is being referred to “movement mechanism’ (see par. [0067] of the PG Pub. version of the specification) and “motion mechanism” (see par. [0070] of the Pg. Pub. version of the specification). Throughout the specification, the mechanism 400 for directing ultrasonic treatment being referred to as “movement mechanism” and “motion mechanism”. The Applicant states on page 5 (see response filed on 04/20/2026) that claim 1 has been amended to remove the claim element “movement mechanism” which invoke 35 USC 112 (f) and therefore the specification objection should be withdrawn, however, the objection to specification was not related to claim interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f) or claim objection. The objection to specification because the specification refers mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) as “movement mechanism’ and “motion mechanism”, and is not consistent through out the specification.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/20/2026, with respect to prior art rejection of independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior Office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Bockenstedt to address independent claims 1 and 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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