DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “being applied to a opticalperson’s skin.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tankovich et al. (USPN 6,050,990 – in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Tankovich discloses a skin treatment system and method, comprising:
a laser generating device (e.g. Fig. 35, col. 8, lines 60 – 64);
a hydrogel patch (e.g. col. 21, line 62 to col. 22, line 66) including: including an absorber, wherein the hydrogel patch, when receiving a laser beam from the laser generating device, results in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ("ESWT") being applied to a person's skin to treat a dermatologic condition; and an optic element between the laser generating device and the hydrogel patch (e.g. col. 30, lines 25 – 30 teaches shockwave therapy, and col. 29, line 35 to col. 30, line 65 teaches the use of carbon black as a chromophore, which is the adsorbing medium. Putting carbon black on the patch of Tankovich is considered to be an obvious design choice yielding predictable results such as more efficient and compact design, as opposed to placing it on the skin by itself. Further, treatment of a dermatologic condition is considered to be intended use, not a structural limitation. Even so, removing hair from the skin is considered to be a dermatologic procedure, and col. 58:15-63 teaches treating scars, and col. 59:10-15 explicitly teaches using shockwave therapy to treat scars).
Regarding claim 2 and 13, Tankovich discloses the dermatologic condition comprises at least one of: (1) an epidermal or dermal tissue structure irregularity, (ii) cellulite, (iii) a stretch mark, (iv) a scar, (v) scar-tissue, (vi) a hypertrophic scar, and (vii) an acne scar (e.g. least col. 58, lines 15 – 63 which teaches treating scars).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Tankovich discloses the laser beam has a pulse width from .2 to 80 nanoseconds (“ns”) (e.g. col. 29, lines50-54), a pulse energy from 100 to 2500 millijoules (“mj”) (e.g. col. 11, lines 5-10); and a spot size from 6 to 15 millimeters. (e.g. col. 11, line 6).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Tankovich discloses the laser beam has Pulse-Per-Second (“PPS”) rate Pulse-Per-Second (“PPS”) rate of 20 to 50 (e.g. col. 34, lines 10-11).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Tankovich discloses the laser beam delivers pulses less than 8 nanoseconds in duration (e.g. col. 29, lines 50 – 54).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 20 and 21, Tankovich discloses the laser beam directs pulses in a reinforcing pattern from one side of a spot to an opposite side of the spot or in a reinforcing pattern from an edge of a spot to center of the spot (e.g. col. 30, lines 52 – 65).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Tankovich discloses the hydrogel patch contains carbon black or any other substance that would have a similar effect (e.g. col. 29, lines 18 – 30).
Regarding claim 9, Tankovich discloses the hydrogel patch is approximately 8 inches by 4 inches (e.g. Fig 19A and corresponding text).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tankovich et al. in view of Karni (US PGPUB 2021/0052292 – in IDS).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 17, and 18, Tankovich discloses the claimed invention except for the laser generating device includes a scanner to provide 50 Hz Q-Switched laser energy to the person's skin and wherein the Laser generating device generates the Q- Switched laser energy in a first mode and further has a second mode that generates a fast pulsed, non Q-Switched laser energy that treats laxity by gently heating the person's skin.
Karni teaches a Q switched scanning laser to produce shockwaves (e.g. ¶ 23 – 25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use such laser generating device with the device of Tankovich since it would yield predictable results and allow for effective production of shockwaves as set forth in Karni.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights