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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 4/16/25. Claims 30 and 31 are new. Claims 16-21, 24-26 and 30-31 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-21, 24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farkas et al. US 2015/0374276.
Regarding claim 16, 28 and 29 Farkas discloses a system for determining a hydration level of skin, wherein the system comprises a device, the device comprising:
a light source configured to emit light to illuminate skin ([¶121,122,145] light source 1506 which can be a single wavelength light source);
a first polarizer arranged to polarize light emitted from the light source in a first polarization direction to illuminate the skin with polarized light ([¶145] polarizer 1526); and
a second polarizer arranged to polarize light, which is emitted from the light source, polarized by the first polarizer and reflected from the skin in a second polarization direction ([¶99,101,145] the detection element has a polarizer 1560, 1532), wherein the second polarization direction is orientated at an angle in a range from 30 to 60 degrees with respect to the first polarization direction ([¶123] second polarizer can be set to 45 degrees); and
a light detector configured to detect the light which is emitted from the light source, polarized by the first polarizer, reflected from the skin and polarized by the second polarizer ([¶145] cameras 1516 and 1518);
wherein the light detector is configured to convert the detected light, which is emitted from the light source, polarized by the first polarizer, reflected from the skin and polarized by the second polarizer, into an image of the skin in a green channel ([¶75,100,105][FIG20][¶173] the images are analyzed in the red-blue-green channels from a central detector);
wherein the system comprises a processor configured to ([¶121] processor 1295):
determine a hydration level of the skin based on the detected light, which is emitted by the light source, polarized by the first polarizer, reflected from the skin and polarized by the second polarizer, in the image of the skin in a green channel ([¶80]).
Regarding claim 17 and 18, Farkas discloses the second polarization direction is orientated at an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the first polarization direction ([¶123]).
Regarding claim 19-21, Farkas discloses the light source is configured to emit near infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 950 to 1000 nm, 1150 to 1250 nm or 1400 to 1500 nm ([¶86,146]).
Regarding claim 24, Farkas discloses the plurality of light emitters are configured to emit light sequentially ([¶52,69]).
Regarding claim 30, Farkas discloses the light source comprises a plurality of light emitters ([FIG. 15]).
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.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas in view of Stamatas et al. US 2011/0288385.
Claim 25 and 26, Farkas does not disclose the light source is configured to emit light with an angle of incidence in a range from 10 to 70 degrees preferably with an angle of incidence of 22 degrees. Stamatas teaches a similar optical skin sensing system that has angle of incidence in the appropriate range ([¶47] Stamatas does not specifically disclose 22 degrees but it is within the range and it has not been shown that 22 degrees specifically provides an unexpected result or some advantage). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the device of Farkas with the angle of incidence of Stamatas as it is no more than the simple substitution of one angle for another to yield the predictable result of illuminating the skin for sensing.
Claim(s) 16-21, 24 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. US 2006/0239547 in view or Farkas.
Regarding claim 16, 28 and 29 Robinson discloses a system for determining a hydration level of skin, wherein the system comprises a device, the device comprising:
a light source configured to emit light to illuminate skin ([¶30][FIG. 3] light source s1, s2, s3);
a first polarizer arranged to polarize light emitted from the light source in a first polarization direction to illuminate the skin with polarized light ([¶30] the emitted light can be polarized); and
a second polarizer arranged to polarize light reflected from the skin in a second polarization direction ([¶30] polarization slate), and
a light detector configured to detect the polarized light reflected from the skin ([¶30][FIG. 3] detectors d1 and d2);
wherein the light detector is configured to convert the detected polarized light from the skin into an image of the skin in a green channel ([¶36] the device can use and process green light images);
wherein the system comprises a processor configured to ([¶22,29] controller and image processor): determine a hydration level of the skin based on the detected light in the image of the skin in a green channel ([¶29,36]).
Robinson does not specifically disclose the second polarization direction is orientated at an angle in a range from 30 to 60 degrees with respect to the first polarization direction. Farkas teaches a similar skin spectrometry device that also uses polarizer with the appropriate cross angle ([¶123,133,136] second polarizer can be set to 45 degrees). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Robinson with the teachings of Farkas as Robinson discloses using various polarization angles ([¶28]) and Farkas teaches well known one ([¶123,133]) thus the combination is no more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of imaging skin for physical properties.
Regarding claim 17 and 18, Farkas teaches the second polarization direction is orientated at an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the first polarization direction ([¶123]).
Regarding claim 19-21, Robinson discloses the light source is configured to emit near infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 950 to 1000 nm, 1150 to 1250 nm or 1400 to 1500 nm ([¶30]).
Regarding claim 30 and 31, Robinson discloses the light source comprises a plurality of light emitters, specifically at least three ([FIG. 3]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against Farkas, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Farkas as shown in FIG. 15, discloses the device as claimed has polarizers for both the emitted light and the remitted light before the detector as claimed. The polarizers maybe set differently for the hyperspectral imaging according to ¶121 but it is not recited that hyperspectral imaging does not polarize the remitted light so based on the specification as a whole and the FIG. 15 it appears Farkas would polarize the light reflected. Similarly, diffuse reflectance hyperspectral imaging refers to the processing of the remitted light/images as they are scattered off the skin. The polarizer before the detector or for the emitted light does not impede change the diffuse reflectance hyperspectral imaging. Applicant also argues that the polarizer before the detector would impede Farkas in detecting light intensity, but Examiner respectfully disagrees. Polarization does reduce light intensity but this argument only makes sense if Farkas was being modified to include a polarizer before the detector. Farkas has a polarizer for the reflected light so its intensity determinations take that into consideration.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Farkas does not disclose the correct angle of polarization, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Farkas discloses using 45 degrees or any angle of polarization needed for the remitted light. This polarized image is then analyzed for any of the various skin conditions recited by Farkas.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Robinson does not disclose analyzing the green waveband to determine hydration, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Robinson discloses the device can use red, green and blue light along with other wave lengths to determine characteristics of the skin. One of those characteristics specifically being hydration.
Additionally, Farkas teaches hyperspectral imaging which uses upwards of 30 wavebands from below the visible light spectrum all the way to above the visible light spectrum. The hyperspectral imaging is used to assess hydration. Therefore the green wavelength is used in this determination. The claim is not specific on how the green channel is used or that only the green channel is analyzed. It does not appear that Applicant’s specification even supports such an interpretation.
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 MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791