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 .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 5 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 13 are currently pending.
In light of the claim amendments, the Section 112 rejections of claims 4, 10, and 11 from the Non-Final Office Action have been withdrawn. However, claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 13 are now rejected in view of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
communication module…configured to receive depth information in claims 1, 5, 9, and 13;
measurement module…configured to measure a depth of a skin layer in claims 1, 5, and 10-12;
first angle measurement module…configured to measure first angle information in claims 10 and 12;
second angle measurement module…configured to measure second angle information in claim 12;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for “communication module” is described as “wired communication module or wireless communication module…” ([0071]). Particular examples are provided at [0072] and [0073].
The corresponding structure for the “measurement module” is described as a “first measurement module,” which can be “For example, the first measurement module 212 may be a medical ultrasound sensor. Meanwhile, the first measurement module 212 may be at least one of a medical ultrasound probe or a medical ultrasound measuring device, and is not limited to a device that measures skin depth.” ([0060]).
With respect to the “first angle measurement module” and “second angle measurement module,” these elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 13 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.
Claim 1 recites a processor configured to:
receive first angle information from a first angle measurement module on the measurement module via the communication module, the first angle measurement module configured to measure the first angle information of the measurement module,
receive second angle information from a second angle measurement module on the ultrasonic generator, the second angle measurement module configured to measure the second angle information of the ultrasonic generator,
perform a comparison of the first angle information and the second angle information….
It is not clear what structural elements are required of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “a first angle measurement module” and further recites that “the first angle measurement module [is] configured to measure the first angle information of the measurement module.” Applicant also recites “a second angle measurement module” and further recites that “the second angle measurement module [is] configured to measure the second angle information of the ultrasonic generator.” However, neither the first angle measurement module nor the second angle measurement module is a positively recited element. The only positively recited limitation is the “angle information” received by the processor. In other words, the claimed ultrasound generating device does not require a first angle measurement module or a second angle measurement module to be part of the structure, but only requires the ability to receive angle information from the modules.
To be clear, the “processor” is a positively recited structure of the ultrasound generating device, but the first and second angle measurement modules are not part of the claimed structure. NOTE: If the claim required either the first angle measurement module or the second angle measurement module, then the claim would be rejected under Section 112(a) and (b) because the specification does not describe a corresponding structure, material, or act for performing the claimed function. To avoid confusion as to what the claim requires, Applicant should remove the “the first angle measurement module configured to…” and “the second angle measurement module configured to…” limitations.
For purposes of a compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting claim 1 as follows:
receive first angle information from a first angle measurement module on the measurement module via the communication module, the first angle information including an orientation of the measurement module when the depth information of each respective skin region is acquired,
receive second angle information from a second angle measurement module on the ultrasonic generator, the second angle information including an orientation of the ultrasonic generator for each respective skin region to be treated,
perform a comparison of the first angle information and the second angle information….
NOTE: It is not clear that the disclosure adequately supports Examiner’s interpretation. Examiner is basing this interpretation on what he believes Applicant has intended and in order to promote a compact prosecution. If Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a similar or identical manner, Applicant should cite to relevant portions of the disclosure and explain how the disclosure supports the amended claim language.
Claim 10 recites a device comprising a measurement module and further recites:
wherein transmission of the first angle information causes the ultrasound generating device to perform comparison of the first angle information and second angle information of the ultrasound generating device measured by a second angle measurement module on the ultrasound generating device.
Although claim 10 recites a device that is configured to measure depth information and then communicate the depth information, claim 10 further recites an action performed by the ultrasound generating device. More specifically, claim 10 recites “wherein transmission of the first angle information causes the ultrasound generating device to perform comparison….” However, the ultrasound generating device is not a positively claimed element. Thus, it is not clear if the claim’s scope includes the ultrasound generating device.
Moreover, it is not clear what is meant by “causes the ultrasound generating device to perform comparison.” Applicant’s disclosure does not describe the ultrasound generating device performing an action in response to (i.e., caused by) receiving a transmission of data. Based on the disclosure, Examiner believes Applicant is attempting to claim performing the comparison after receiving the first angle information.
Accordingly, Examiner is interpreting claim 10 as follows:
further comprising the ultrasound generating device, wherein the ultrasound generating device performs a comparison of the first angle information and second angle information of the ultrasound generating device after transmission of the first angle information, wherein the second angle measurement is measured by a second angle measurement module on the ultrasound generating device.
NOTE: It is not clear that the disclosure adequately supports Examiner’s interpretation. Examiner is basing this interpretation on what he believes Applicant has intended and in order to promote a compact prosecution. If Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a similar or identical manner, Applicant should cite to relevant portions of the disclosure and explain how the disclosure supports the amended claim language.
In addition to the above, claim 10 recites a device comprising a measurement module and further recites:
wherein the measurement module comprises a first angle measurement module, the first angle measurement module configured to measure first angle information of the measurement module and transmit the first angle information via the communication module to the ultrasound generating device;
wherein transmission of the first angle information causes the ultrasound generating device to perform comparison of the first angle information and second angle information of the ultrasound generating device measured by a second angle measurement module on the ultrasound generating device.
Claim 10 positively recites “first angle measurement module.” This term invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, it is not clear what is meant by “first angle measurement module” (or “second angle measurement module”). The disclosure does not describe any particular device that measures angles (e.g., accelerometer, inertial measurement unit, structured light reflected from the skin, pressure sensor, etc.). Moreover, the disclosure does not describe how the angle information is obtained, which could reveal the type of device. An “angle” is a measurement between to elements or at least relative to another element. The disclosure does not specify what “angle information” is measured relative to. For example, angle information could mean an angle of the device measured relative to the surface of the skin or an orientation (i.e., relative to the direction of gravity). The specification does not provide a definition or examples of how to acquire the angle information. Relevant paragraphs include [0067]: “Since the position and depth at which the skin S is measured vary depending on the angle of the first measurement module 212, the first angle measurement module 212 a may be provided to accurately measure the skin S” and [0070]: “The communication module 112 may receive and obtain the depth information and the position information B from a separate device or another server, and may also receive and obtain the angle.” Neither of the quoted portions reveals what type of angle measurement is acquired.
Accordingly, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the step of measuring angle information.
Claim 12 recites “a first angle measurement module” and “a second angle measurement module.” As discussed above, these terms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the step of measuring angle information.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 13 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 13 have been 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.
The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of measuring the angle. An “angle” is a measurement between two elements or at least one element relative to some reference. In this case, it is not clear what “angle information” is measured relative to. For example, angle information could mean an angle of the device measured relative to the surface of the skin or an orientation (i.e., relative to the direction of gravity). However, the specification does not provide a definition or examples of how to acquire the angle information. The more detailed discussion of the angle information includes [0067]: “Since the position and depth at which the skin S is measured vary depending on the angle of the first measurement module 212, the first angle measurement module 212 a may be provided to accurately measure the skin S” and [0070]: “The communication module 112 may receive and obtain the depth information and the position information B from a separate device or another server, and may also receive and obtain the angle. Neither of the quoted portions reveals what type of angle measurement is acquired. Lastly, the disclosure does not describe any particular device that measures angles (e.g., accelerometer, inertial measurement unit, structured light reflected from the skin, pressure sensor, etc.) so it is not clear what the “angle information” represents.
Accordingly, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
In light of the claim amendments, the previous Section 112(b) rejections of claims 4, 10, and 11 and Section 112(a) rejection of claims 10 and 11 have been withdrawn. However, the newly introduced claim limitations relating to “first angle measurement module” and “second angle measurement module” are indefinite and fail to satisfy the written description requirement as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2022/0211320 A1 (hereinafter “CMLAB”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0009111 A1 (hereinafter “MYHR”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0375274 A1 (hereinafter “BARTHE”).
PNG
media_image1.png
904
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CMLAB concerns a “composite medical treatment apparatus” that measures a “skin condition” according to a “measurement position” on a region of interest and, subsequently, applies a “treatment medium according to a control parameter” that corresponds to a treatment position that matches the measurement position. (Abstract; see also [0067]). Figure 1 of CMLAB is shown here. The treatment medium is “high-intensity focused ultrasound” (HIFU). ([0008] and claim 2). The skin condition can be the skin’s thickness or elasticity. ([0009] and [0010]).
With respect to claim 1 (and in light of the Section 112 rejection), CMLAB teaches an ultrasound generating device having an automatic ultrasound control function. (Abstract and [0007]). The device includes an ultrasonic generator configured to irradiate ultrasound to the skin. ([0008]: “[A]n ultrasonic transducer configured for generating the high-intensity focused ultrasound and applying to the region of interest….”); a communication module (“main controller 20”; see [0043]; see also [0067] discussed below) configured to receive depth information for each of a plurality of skin regions from a measurement module ([0068]: The main controller receives a skin condition based on the position and adjusts the application depth for different skin conditions; see also Figure 1 showing a plurality of depths within the same skin region. See also Figure 5(b) (right diagram) and [0063] describing a plurality of points “d” where measurements are made to form a skin map of “skin conditions.” See also [0064]: “The skin condition is related to the measurement position…The skin condition may be stored for each point-by-point or sub-region. The skin condition may be stored in association with each specific point. The sub-region may be defined as a region having skin condition that is substantially the same or falls within an allowable error range in the region of interest, for example, a face.”); a memory configured to store mapping information ([0043]: “The main controller 20 may include a storage unit for storing the skin map”), wherein the mapping information includes a correspondence between (A) a treatment condition and (B) position information of one or more skin regions to be treated for the treatment condition and depth information for each of the one or more skin regions to be treated for the treatment condition ([0067]: “One or more skin conditions associated with the treatment position is obtained in 420. The treatment position measured by the handpiece 10 is retrieved from the skin map stored in the main controller 20 or an external information processing device (e.g., PC or server; hereinafter referred to as the main controller 20 collectively) communicatively connected to the main controller 20. When the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” (emphasis added), which is immediately followed by [0068]: “The control parameter is generated using the acquired one or more skin condition in 430. The control parameter is used to control selection of the treatment medium to be applied to the treatment point, the intensity of the selected treatment medium, an output time of the selected medium, an application depth where the selected medium can reach….” (emphasis added).); and a processor configured to:
receive first angle information from a first angle measurement module on the measurement module via the communication module, the first angle information including an orientation of the measurement module when the depth information of each respective skin region is acquired. NOTE: Examiner is interpreting CMLAB’s “gyro sensor” attached to the handpiece as the “first angle measurement module.” The skin map in CMLAB is “based on collected skin condition and measurement position.” ([0043]). The measurement position may not only include a spatial position (“two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinates for specifying a specific position over the entire region of interest….” ([0061]), but also orientation information (i.e., angle information). For example, “[t]he handpiece 10 may include the optical position sensor 310 and/or the gyro sensor, and may measure a direction and a distance of movement of the handpiece 10 in contact with the region of interest. The information measured by the sensor may be a position in the form of at least two-dimensional coordinates indicating a measurement point, and may be adjusted by information such as tilt and/or rotation measured by the gyro sensor.” ([0062]; see also [0042]: “…the position measuring unit 300 may further include a sensor such as a gyro sensor (not shown) for measuring a posture of the handpiece 10, for example, rotation, inclination, and so on.”).
receive second angle information from a second angle measurement module on the ultrasonic generator, the second angle information including an orientation of the ultrasonic generator for each respective skin region to be treated. “The treatment position may be measured in the same way as the measurement position.” ([0066]).
perform a comparison of the first angle information and the second angle information. “When the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” ([0067]).
based on the comparison and the mapping information, control the ultrasonic generator to irradiate ultrasound to each of the one or more skin regions to be treated for the treatment condition at respective depth(s) corresponding to the depth information. “When the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” ([0067]: see also [0043]: “The main controller 20 drives the handpiece 10…[and] generates control parameters to drive HIFU and/or laser according to the treatment position. The main controller 20 may include…a power supply for supplying power required to drive the composite medical treatment apparatus including the handpiece 10”; see also Figure 6 which “exemplarily illustrates the skin map and a treatment process using the same.” [0031]).
With respect to the main controller of CMLAB disclosing a “receiver configured to receive depth information,” CMLAB discloses the structure corresponding to the receiving function described in Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s disclosure teaches that the depth information is received by a “communication module.” (see, e.g., [0023]). The communication module may be wired or wireless (see [0072] and [0073], respectively). CMLAB discloses that “[t]he treatment position measured by the handpiece 10 is retrieved from the skin map stored in the main controller 20 or an external information processing device (e.g., PC or server; hereinafter referred to as the main controller 20 collectively) communicatively connected to the main controller 20.” ([0067]). A PC or server storing the skin map would necessarily be wired or wirelessly connected to a device of the composite medical treatment apparatus that receives the depth information as described in Applicant’s disclosure.
While CMLAB teaches determining a skin thickness (e.g., [0046]) and that the HIFU is capable of being applied at different depths (e.g., [0068]) and CMLAB illustrates a plurality of skin layers in Figure 1, it is not clear whether CMLAB teaches that the depth information for a respective skin region includes a plurality of depths corresponding to a plurality of skin layers for the respective skin region.
In the same field of endeavor, MYHR teaches “a system and method for the removal of wrinkles and/or provide the rejuvenation of the human skin by use of ultrasound.” (Abstract). MYHR notes that conventional HIFU systems can mistakenly miss superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) layers while destroying subcutaneous fat layers. ([0009]). According to MYHR, “the invention describes systems and their use of such systems for the treatment of wrinkles, acne, lipo sculpturing or causing the rejuvenation of the skin, comprising at least one diagnostic unit, at least one energy source, at least one processing unit (PU), wherein the system is characterized by: mapping of tissue area and depths and the 3D mapping of tissues constituting regions of interest, endogenously generated variable focal depths of therapeutic or diagnostic ultrasound probes….” (emphasis added) ([0082] and [0083]). “For treatment of skin wrinkles it is important that the depth range of high heat generation in the skin tissues is short (<around 500 μm) so that one obtains heat deposition in selected skin tissue layers only.” (emphasis added) ([0110]). “For imaging of the tissue structures prior to treatment, for example to determine focal depth positions, number of heat deposit regions, and range extensions of heat deposit regions, one can use high frequency ultrasound measurements or imaging of the tissue structures.” ([0116]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the CMLAB system such that the depth information for a respective skin region includes a plurality of depths corresponding to a plurality of skin layers for the respective skin region. One would have been motivated to determine the different layers of the skin in order to determine the layers to apply therapy within the region of interest while avoiding other layers, as described in MYHR. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because MYHR teaches that HIFU can be applied at different depths based on the analysis of different layers within the region of interest.
While CMLAB teaches receiving angle information through the measurement position and treatment position and comparing the measurement position and the treatment position before applying treatment, it is not clear that CMLAB describes that the angle-measurement modules are distinct angle-measurement modules (i.e., one on the imaging ultrasound transducer and the other on the ultrasonic generator).
However, in the same field of endeavor, BARTHE teaches a method and system for treating stretch marks through ultrasound. ([0002]). BARTHE teaches that a single imaging/therapy probe can be substituted with two separate probes. “Imaging/therapy probe 104 can comprise various probe and/or transducer configurations. For example, probe 104 can be configured for a combined dual-mode imaging/therapy transducer, coupled or co-housed imaging/therapy transducers, or simply a separate therapy probe and an imaging probe.” ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace CMLAB’s dual-mode ultrasound handpiece with two different probes for imaging and therapy, as taught in BARTHE, in which each probe has an angle-measurement module (i.e., gyro sensor). Both types of ultrasound probes (i.e., a diagnostic imaging probe and a HIFU therapy probe) are well known in the art. Two separate probes would perform the same functions as the combined probe. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results would be predictable.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace CMLAB’s dual-mode ultrasound handpiece with two different probes for imaging and therapy, as taught in BARTHE, in which each probe has an angle-measurement module (i.e., gyro sensor) that measures the angle information of the corresponding probe. One would have been motivated to use separate probes because a dual-mode design would be more costly and would have limited application, whereas separate imaging and therapy probes could be used for more applications.
With respect to claim 2, CMLAB teaches wherein the position information is obtained from a navigation sensor. “Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate.” MPEP 2114) (see also Id.: “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”).
Claim 2 only requires that the position information is capable of being determined using a navigation sensor. Nonetheless, CMLAB teaches that the position information is obtained through at least one of a navigation sensor. “The handpiece 10 may include the optical position sensor 310 and/or the gyro sensor, and may measure a direction and a distance of movement of the handpiece 10 in contact with the region of interest. The information measured by the sensor may be a position in the form of at least two-dimensional coordinates indicating a measurement point, and may be adjusted by information such as tilt and/or rotation measured by the gyro sensor.” ([0062]).
With respect to claim 3 (depending from claim 2), CMLAB teaches, wherein the position information is obtained from a patient while the patient is in a state where the patient is fixed so that there is no movement of the patient. “Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate.” MPEP 2114) (see also Id.: “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”).
Claim 3 only requires that the position information is capable of being obtained while the patient is in a fixed position. Nonetheless, CMLAB teaches that the position information is obtained from a patient while the patient is in a state where the patient is fixed so that there is no movement of the patient. Figure 5(a) demonstrates the patient being still for at least one measurement of the position information. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that position information is more reliable if acquired while the patient is still.
With respect to claim 4, CMLAB teaches that the position information is obtained from a position recognition camera configured to detect coordinate values associated with the plurality of skin regions; wherein the position information further includes image information including the plurality of skin regions. Examiner notes that claim 4 is similar to claims 2 and 3 and does not recite a structural limitation. “Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate.” MPEP 2114) (see also Id.: “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”). Nonetheless, CMLAB teaches these limitations. “The measurement position may be generated by the handpiece 10 or by the three-dimensional scanner C1 or C2. The measurement position may be two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinates for specifying a specific position over the entire region of interest, or a region identifier for specifying a plurality of sub-regions constituting the region of interest. Although there may be some discrepancies, for example, the region identifier may be used to classify and specify the cheeks into four regions 1 to 4 based on statistics on skin thickness.” ([0061]).
With respect to claim 6, CMLAB teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the first angle information matches the second angle information based on the comparison. CMLAB teaches that “[w]hen the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” (emphasis added) ([0067]). Moreover, CMLAB teaches that the measurement position may not only include coordinates but also “tilt and/or rotation measured by the gyro sensor.” As such, CMLAB teaches the processor is configured to determine whether the first angle information matches the second angle information based on the comparison.
With respect to claim 7, CMLAB teaches wherein controlling the ultrasonic generator includes checking for respective mapping information which corresponds to a respective position of a handpiece. CMLAB teaches that “[w]hen the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” (emphasis added) ([0067]). Moreover, the position information may be based on the position of the handpiece as acquired through imaging. (See, e.g., [0062]: “[T]he three-dimensional scanner C1, C2 may perform a three-dimensional scan on the region of interest to generate three-dimensional coordinates and measure the measurement position of the handpiece 10.” (emphasis added). See Figure 5(a) illustrating the scanner C1, C2 as separate cameras.)
With respect to claim 12 (and in light of the Section 112 rejection), as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 10, CMLAB teaches an ultrasound generation system having an automatic ultrasound control function ([0008]: “[A]n ultrasonic transducer configured for generating the high-intensity focused ultrasound and applying to the region of interest….”), comprising:
a measurement module configured to measure depth information for each of a plurality of skin regions; and ([0046]: “The ultrasound transducer 130 may be a dual-mode ultrasound transducer. That is, the ultrasound transducer 130 may generate HIFU for the purpose of treatment and a low-intensity ultrasound for the purpose of measuring skin thickness.”);
a first angle measurement module on the measurement module and configured to measure first angle information of the measurement module. Examiner is interpreting CMLAB’s “gyro sensor” attached to the handpiece as the “first angle measurement module.” The skin map in CMLAB is “based on collected skin condition and measurement position.” ([0043]). The measurement position may not only include a spatial position (“two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinates for specifying a specific position over the entire region of interest….” ([0061]), but also orientation information (i.e., angle information). For example, “[t]he handpiece 10 may include the optical position sensor 310 and/or the gyro sensor, and may measure a direction and a distance of movement of the handpiece 10 in contact with the region of interest. The information measured by the sensor may be a position in the form of at least two-dimensional coordinates indicating a measurement point, and may be adjusted by information such as tilt and/or rotation measured by the gyro sensor.” ([0062]; see also [0042]: “…the position measuring unit 300 may further include a sensor such as a gyro sensor (not shown) for measuring a posture of the handpiece 10, for example, rotation, inclination, and so on.”).
an ultrasonic generator device ([0038]: “The HIFU-laser generator 100 may irradiate HIFU energy to a predetermined depth under the epidermis.”) configured to irradiate ultrasound to each of one or more skin regions to be treated for a treatment condition at respective depth(s) corresponding to the depth information ([0040]: “The HIFU-laser generator 100 may adjust the focal depth of HIFU energy… Since the thickness or elasticity of the skin may be different for each patient and/or each region, and the depth of the target tissue may be different, HIFU energy may be controlled to have a different focal depth for each body part.”) based on mapping information, wherein the mapping information includes a correspondence between (A) the treatment condition and (B) position information of one or more skin regions to be treated for the treatment condition and depth information for each of the one or more skin regions to be treated for the treatment condition. ([0067]: “One or more skin conditions associated with the treatment position is obtained in 420. The treatment position measured by the handpiece 10 is retrieved from the skin map stored in the main controller 20 or an external information processing device (e.g., PC or server; hereinafter referred to as the main controller 20 collectively) communicatively connected to the main controller 20. When the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” (emphasis added), which is immediately followed by [0068]: “The control parameter is generated using the acquired one or more skin condition in 430. The control parameter is used to control selection of the treatment medium to be applied to the treatment point, the intensity of the selected treatment medium, an output time of the selected medium, an application depth where the selected medium can reach….” (emphasis added).)
a second angle measurement module on the ultrasonic generator device and configured to measure second angle information of the ultrasonic generator device. “The treatment position may be measured in the same way as the measurement position.” ([0066]).
a processor configured to control the ultrasonic generator based on comparing the first angle information with the second angle information. “When the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” ([0067]: see also [0043]: “The main controller 20 drives the handpiece 10…[and] generates control parameters to drive HIFU and/or laser according to the treatment position. The main controller 20 may include…a power supply for supplying power required to drive the composite medical treatment apparatus including the handpiece 10”; see also Figure 6 which “exemplarily illustrates the skin map and a treatment process using the same.” [0031]).
While CMLAB teaches determining a skin thickness (e.g., [0046]) and that the HIFU is capable of being applied at different depths (e.g., [0068]) and CMLAB illustrates a plurality of skin layers in Figure 1, it is not clear whether CMLAB teaches that the depth information for a respective skin region includes a plurality of depths corresponding to a plurality of skin layers for the respective skin region.
In the same field of endeavor, MYHR teaches “a system and method for the removal of wrinkles and/or provide the rejuvenation of the human skin by use of ultrasound.” (Abstract). MYHR notes that conventional HIFU systems can mistakenly miss superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) layers while destroying subcutaneous fat layers. ([0009]). According to MYHR, “the invention describes systems and their use of such systems for the treatment of wrinkles, acne, lipo sculpturing or causing the rejuvenation of the skin, comprising at least one diagnostic unit, at least one energy source, at least one processing unit (PU), wherein the system is characterized by: mapping of tissue area and depths and the 3D mapping of tissues constituting regions of interest, endogenously generated variable focal depths of therapeutic or diagnostic ultrasound probes….” (emphasis added) ([0082] and [0083]). “For treatment of skin wrinkles it is important that the depth range of high heat generation in the skin tissues is short (<around 500 μm) so that one obtains heat deposition in selected skin tissue layers only.” (emphasis added) ([0110]). “For imaging of the tissue structures prior to treatment, for example to determine focal depth positions, number of heat deposit regions, and range extensions of heat deposit regions, one can use high frequency ultrasound measurements or imaging of the tissue structures.” ([0116]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the CMLAB system such that the depth information for a respective skin region includes a plurality of depths corresponding to a plurality of skin layers for the respective skin region. One would have been motivated to determine the different layers of the skin in order to determine the layers to apply therapy within the region of interest while avoiding other layers, as described in MYHR. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because MYHR teaches that HIFU can be applied at different depths based on the analysis of different layers within the region of interest.
However, CMLAB does not explicitly teach the ultrasound generation system having a first angle measurement module that is configured to measure first angle information of the measurement module that is separate from a second angle measurement module that is configured to measure second angle information of the ultrasonic generator device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, BARTHE teaches a method and system for treating stretch marks through ultrasound. ([0002]). BARTHE teaches that a single imaging/therapy probe can be substituted with two separate probes. “Imaging/therapy probe 104 can comprise various probe and/or transducer configurations. For example, probe 104 can be configured for a combined dual-mode imaging/therapy transducer, coupled or co-housed imaging/therapy transducers, or simply a separate therapy probe and an imaging probe.” ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace CMLAB’s dual-mode ultrasound handpiece with two different probes for imaging and therapy, as taught in BARTHE, in which each probe has an angle-measurement module (i.e., gyro sensor) that measures the angle information of the corresponding probe. Both types of ultrasound probes (i.e., a diagnostic imaging probe and a HIFU therapy probe) are well known in the art. Two separate probes would perform the same functions as the combined probe. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results would be predictable.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace CMLAB’s dual-mode ultrasound handpiece with two different probes for imaging and therapy, as taught in BARTHE, in which each probe has an angle-measurement module (i.e., gyro sensor) that measures the angle information of the corresponding probe. One would have been motivated to use separate probes because a dual-mode design would be more costly and would have limited application, whereas separate imaging and therapy probes could be used for more applications.
With respect to claim 13, CMLAB teaches that the ultrasonic generator device comprises: an ultrasonic generator configured to irradiate ultrasound ([0008]: “[A]n ultrasonic transducer configured for generating the high-intensity focused ultrasound and applying to the region of interest….”); a receiver configured to receive the depth information (“main controller 20”; see [0043]; see also [0067]); and a memory configured to store the mapping information ([0043]: “The main controller 20 may include a storage unit for storing the skin map”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2022/0211320 A1 (hereinafter “CMLAB”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0009111 A1 (hereinafter “MYHR”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2004/0039312 A1 (hereinafter “HILLSTEAD”).
With respect to claim 8, the cited art does not teach the processor being configured to output a treatment completion state based on treatment being completed for a respective skin region.
HILLSTEAD teaches a system for the destruction of adipose tissue utilizing high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) within a patient's body. HILLSTEAD teaches displaying an image that demonstrates the progressive completion of the treatment session. “The practitioner then “paints” the region to be treated using a display that includes a map of the treatment region. For example, a display might show red over a blue background where, as an area becomes treated, red changes to yellow. The computer tracks the treated areas to prevent overexposure to HIFU beams and to prevent multiple ensonifications. It is not necessary for the practitioner to pain in any particular pattern. All that is required is to completely “paint” the region of interest. A combination of sensors on the transducer are used to identify overlapping regions and to prevent damage. The practitioner continues painting until no more red areas exist on the display, indicating that treatment is complete.” ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the processor so that the processors outputs a treatment completion state based on treatment being completed for a respective skin region. One would be motivated to display a map of the treatment region, as taught in HILLSTEAD, so that a practitioner knows where therapy has been applied and knows when that the treatment is complete for the skin region. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as HILLSTEAD teaches that a HIFU system for applying therapy can display a completion status to the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2022/0211320 A1 (hereinafter “CMLAB”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0009111 A1 (hereinafter “MYHR”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nair et al., Clinical photography for periorbital and facial aesthetic practice. Journal of cutaneous and aesthetic surgery. 2016 Apr 1;9(2):115-21. (hereinafter “NAIR”).
With respect to claim 9, the cited art does not teach wherein the receiver is further configured to receive images of each of the plurality of skin regions from before and after a skin treatment procedure.
In the field of cosmetic surgery, NAIR discusses the importance of using photography to document treatment. “A clinical photograph is an invaluable tool in the learning process of any medical practitioner by helping in documenting the progression of a disease or response to treatment over time. The importance of clinical photography in medicine, in general, is well known. Apart from teaching, research and medicolegal purposes, photography helps in treatment planning, self‑assessment and also in marketing and advertising.” (p. 115, left column, first paragraph). NAIR emphasizes the importance of the photographs being “comparable and standardised.” (Id). To this end, NAIR describes “the basic techniques of digital facial photography and a few tips on how to achieve a certain degree of standardisation in photography techniques.” (p. 115, right column, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a receiver that is configured to receive images of each of the plurality of skin regions from before and after a skin treatment procedure. One would be motivated to acquire before and after images using the same standard imaging techniques, as taught in NAIR, so that the before and after images are comparable. As such, one skilled in the art would use the same camera (e.g., camera used with the treatment device) to acquire the before and after images. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as NAIR teaches that comparable before and after images can be acquired.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2022/0211320 A1 (hereinafter “CMLAB”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0375274 A1 (hereinafter “BARTHE”).
With respect to claim 10 (and in light of the Section 112(a) and (b) rejections), CMLAB teaches a device, comprising: a measurement module ([0046]: “The ultrasound transducer 130 may be a dual-mode ultrasound transducer. That is, the ultrasound transducer 130 may generate HIFU for the purpose of treatment and a low-intensity ultrasound for the purpose of measuring skin thickness.”) configured to:
measure a depth of a skin layer. The main controller receives a skin condition based on the position and adjusts the application depth for different skin conditions. ([0068]; see also Figure 1 showing a plurality of depths within the same skin region; see also Figure 5(b) (right diagram) and [0063] describing a plurality of points “d” where measurements are made to form a skin map of “skin conditions.”
wherein the measurement module comprises a first angle measurement module, the first angle measurement module configured to measure first angle information of the measurement module. NOTE: Examiner is interpreting CMLAB’s “gyro sensor” attached to the handpiece (ultrasound probe) as the “first angle measurement module.” In CMLAB, the skin map is “based on collected skin condition and measurement position.” ([0043]). The measurement position may not only include a spatial position (“two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinates for specifying a specific position over the entire region of interest….” ([0061]), but also orientation information (i.e., angle information). For example, “[t]he handpiece 10 may include the optical position sensor 310 and/or the gyro sensor, and may measure a direction and a distance of movement of the handpiece 10 in contact with the region of interest. The information measured by the sensor may be a position in the form of at least two-dimensional coordinates indicating a measurement point, and may be adjusted by information such as tilt and/or rotation measured by the gyro sensor.” ([0062]; see also [0042]: “…the position measuring unit 300 may further include a sensor such as a gyro sensor (not shown) for measuring a posture of the handpiece 10, for example, rotation, inclination, and so on.”).
wherein transmission of the first angle information causes the ultrasound generating device to perform comparison of the first angle information and second angle information of the ultrasound generating device measured by a second angle measurement module on the ultrasound generating device. “The treatment position may be measured in the same way as the measurement position.” ([0066]). CMLAB specifically teaches retrieving first angle information (i.e., measurement position) and comparing the first angle information to the second angle information (i.e., treatment position) after receiving the first angle information. “When the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” ([0067]).
transmit data of the measured depth to the ultrasound generating device for mapping of a treatment condition to depth information for each of a plurality of skin regions. “When the measurement position that matches the treatment position or falls within a predetermined error range is retrieved, one or more skin conditions related thereto may be acquired.” ([0067]: see also [0043]: “The main controller 20 drives the handpiece 10…[and] generates control parameters to drive HIFU and/or laser according to the treatment position. The main controller 20 may include…a power supply for supplying power required to drive the composite medical treatment apparatus including the handpiece 10”; see also Figure 6 which “exemplarily illustrates the skin map and a treatment process using the same.” [0031]).
However, CMLAB does not explicitly teach that the measurement module is configured to operatively couple with a communication module of an ultrasound generating device to transmit data of the measured depth to the ultrasound generating device for mapping of a treatment condition to depth information for each of a plurality of skin regions. CMLAB also does not explicitly teach that the measurement module is configured to transmit the first angle information via the communication module to the ultrasound generating device. Nevertheless, CMLAB does describe storing the skin map in “an external information processing device” from which the treatment position may be retrieved. ([0067]).
NOTE: Within the context of a first device communicating data to a second device, Examiner is interpreting the term “operatively coupled” to include the devices communicating directly with each other and indirectly with each other (i.e., via a third device such as an external information processing device). This interpretation is consistent with the specification which describes one example in which the intervening server communicates the data. (see, e.g., [0020], [0105], [0109]). See MPEP 2111 and Innova/Pure Water v. Safari Water Filtration, 381 F. 3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) in which the court held that “operatively connected” means the two elements are arranged in a manner capable of performing the recited function.
However, in the same field of endeavor, BARTHE teaches a method and system for treating stretch marks through ultrasound. ([0002]). BARTHE teaches that a single imaging/therapy probe can be substituted with two separate probes. “Imaging/therapy probe 104 can comprise various probe and/or transducer configurations. For example, probe 104 can be configured for a combined dual-mode imaging/therapy transducer, coupled or co-housed imaging/therapy transducers, or simply a separate therapy probe and an imaging probe.” ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace CMLAB’s dual-mode ultrasound handpiece with two different probes for imaging and therapy, as taught in BARTHE, in which each probe has an angle-measurement module (i.e., gyro sensor) that measures the angle information of the corresponding probe. Both types of ultrasound probes (i.e., a diagnostic imaging probe and a HIFU therapy probe) are well known in the art. Two separate probes would perform the same functions as the combined probe. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results would be predictable. NOTE: When using two separate probes, the ultrasound probe would necessarily communicate the data of the measured depth and the first angle information, whether directly or indirectly, to the ultrasound generating device so that the ultrasound generating device could apply therapy. For example, the diagnostic imaging probe would communicate the position and angle information to “an external information processing device” that would then communicate the stored information to the ultrasound generating device. As such, the measurement module would be “operatively coupled” to the ultrasound generating device and the data would be transmitted to the ultrasound generating device.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace CMLAB’s dual-mode ultrasound handpiece with two different probes for imaging and therapy, as taught in BARTHE, in which each probe has an angle-measurement module (i.e., gyro sensor) that measures the angle information of the corresponding probe. One would have been motivated to use separate probes because a dual-mode design would be more costly and would have limited application, whereas separate imaging and therapy probes could be used for more applications.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed on March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach an angle-measurement module on the measurement module (i.e., ultrasound transducer) and a separate angle-measurement module on the ultrasonic generator. As discussed above, Examiner is relying upon BARTHE for teaching that two separate probes may replace a combined/dual-mode ultrasound probe. In this case, it would be necessary for each of the ultrasound probes to have an angle measurement module (e.g., gyro sensor) so that CMLAB’s process could be implemented.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fabi et al., “Optimizing patient outcomes by customizing treatment with microfocused ultrasound with visualization: gold standard consensus guidelines from an expert panel.” J Drugs Dermatol 18.5 (2019): 426-432 (hereinafter “FABI”). FABI teaches a “consensus summary” for achieving best clinical outcomes and states “[u]ltrasound imaging is a key factor for customizing treatments” and that “[v]isualization should be performed to assess the depth of the SMAS to determine treatment plan.” (p.430, Table 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-1386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00CT.
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) 270-5284. 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.
/JASON P GROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANNE M KOZAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights