1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to facial treatment apparatus and, more specifically, to a Handheld Facial Massage and Light Therapy Device.
2. Description of Related Art
Handheld facial treatment devices for home use have become a very active field of invention recently. A plurality of new devices each, in their own way, seek to give a consumer the ability to self-administer many skin treatments that were previously only available in a medical office environment. In particular, the use of LED light in particular wavelengths, and the incorporation of motorized massaging features have been quite popular.
The device that is the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 7,384,405 to Rhoades combines a facial brush/applicator with an internal mechanism for generating vibration. While the Rhoades patent does disclose a device having interchangeable massage heads, it does not suggest the use of either light therapy or microcurrent therapy.
Chan, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 7,748,070 is a motorized toothbrush that also emits LED light—allegedly to kill microorganisms on the user's teeth. While the Chan device does suggest the use of exchangeable brush elements, there is no disclosure of the emission of microcurrents for skin treatment (this is not a skin treatment device), nor are the LED light elements exchangeable to provide different color treatments. Furthermore, there is no motorized mechanism in the Chan device to create vibration in the treatment head for the purpose of massaging the skin.
A final relevant device is the subject of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0240310 filed by Kennedy. The Kennedy device is a handheld facial skin treatment device having interchangeable LED light treatment heads available in a variety of shapes. The Kennedy device further does incorporate an internal “sonic” vibration mechanism within the handpiece. The Kennedy device does not, however, suggest the providing of microcurrents through the treatment head, nor does it suggest the positioning of the vibration generator within the interchangeable treatment head, rather than within the handpiece. The distinction being that if the vibration generator is always a part of the unit, then the added weight will also be carried by the user. If it is moved to the interchangeable head module, then the basic handpiece will be much lighter and less complex in nature, and therefore likely to be more useful to users in a wider variety of treatment configurations.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds