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 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“Image capturing unit” in claim 1 is a light source and a charge coupled device (CCD) complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor. (see para. [0050,0057]).
“Image capturing part” in claim 3 is a charge coupled device (CCD) complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor. (see para. [0057]).
“User terminal” in claim 7 is a smartphone or a tablet personal computer (PC) (see para. [0067]).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “analyze water permeability of the user’s skin barrier layer from the transdermal water loss amount”, but is unclear how this step is performed. The specification merely recites the same language as in the claims (see para. [0074,0080,0098,0105,0108]), as a result there is no meaningful explanation one of ordinary skill in the art can understand to perform the step.
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, and 3-10 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 9 recites “analyze water permeability of the user’s skin barrier layer from the transdermal water loss amount” in lines 7-9 and 3-5, but is indefinite. It is unclear how the step is performed based on the measurement results to achieve the result. The specification is devoid of detail that describes how this step is performed.
Claim limitation “control unit” in claim 1, “first/ one or more second sensor parts” in clam 1, “skincare server” in claim 7, “analysis unit” in claim 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. It is unclear what structure corresponds to the above.Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
Claims not listed are rejected by virtue of claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including determining the user's skin condition by synthesizing the analysis results. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of determining the user's skin condition by synthesizing the analysis results sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 11 recites storing a determination result, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The skin condition determination does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the skin condition, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of generating a control signal to measure the user’s skin condition based on selected modes, using sensor parts to measure transepidermal water loss amount and water content of the users skin. Generating control signals to measure a user’s skin condition based on selected modes and using sensors to measure transepidermal water loss amount and water content of the users skin are well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the acquiring, retrieving, and comparison steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited sensor unit and image capturing unit are generic sensors configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, and the computer system is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and processing. The determining steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sik (KR 20200115058- Cited by application) in view of Bandic et al. (US 20110301441- Previously cited), hereinafter Bandic, and Ademola (US 20150045631 A1- Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sik teaches a portable skin condition measuring apparatus for measuring a skin condition of a user’s body (see para. [0001]) comprising: a main body having a skin measurement region (see fig. 2, main body with measurement region at the distal end);
a sensor unit dispose inside the main body and measuring the skin condition through the skin measurement region (see para. [0055], sensing unit 130);
an image capturing unit dispose inside the main body and configured to capture an image of a user’s skin through the skin measurement region (see para. [0076], photographing module 127); and
a control unit (140) configured to control an operation of at least one of the sensor unit and the image capturing unit based on a control signal transmitted from a user terminal (see para. [0088], the control unit 140 controls the imaging and sensor components based on user operation of the control switch), and configured to transmit at least one of measurement results of the sensor unit and the image of the user’s skin to the user terminal (see para. [0022,0116,0143-144], an image is created for the analysis and diagnosis for the user to see via the user terminal/screen),
wherein the skin measurement region is partitioned into a first region and a second region by a partitioning part (see fig. 2, blocking body 113 partitions into a plurality of regions).
Sik fails to teach wherein the first region has a shape in which one surface thereof in contact with a user’s skin is opened. It is noted that that the first region of Sik is covered by a clear membrane 118.
Bandic teaches a skin condition device that is provided with an optical sensor configured to be in contact with the skin region of concern (see para. [0311], “The sensor may be adapted to detect reflected or re-emitted light, from any distance from the area or when in contact with the area of concern”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik, such that the measurement region is configured to be in contact with the user’s skin, as taught by Bandic, as it would merely be substituting one known element (uncovered sensor region for contact with skin) according to known methods (covered sensor region) to yield predictable results. Additionally, the modification is merely using a known technique (direct measurement region contact) to improve similar devices (skin measurement device) in the same way.
It follows, Sik-Bandic teach wherein the senor unit comprises a first sensor part dispose in the first region (see fig. 2 of Sik, 120 photographing module); and one or more second sensor parts disposed at one end of the main body, in contact with the user’s skin, and configured to measure water content of the user’s skin (see para. [0087] of Sik, moisture measurement sensor is provided, one skill in the art understands that a moisture measurement sensor configured to measure skin conditions results in obtaining a water content of the user’s skin).
Sik-Bandic fail to teach wherein the first sensor part is configured to measure transepidermal water loss. It is noted that Bandic teaches “an important function of the skin is protection against the loss of water. Transepidermal Water Loss (or TWL or TEWL) is process of passive diffusion through the skin” (see para. [1545]).
Ademola teaches a skin health system comprising a tewameter for measuring transepidermal water loss (see abstract and table 1) to aid in helping monitor skin health, general health, and specific medical conditions (see para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik-Bandic, such that transepidermal water loss amount is measured, as taught by Ademola, to aid in helping monitor skin health, general health, and specific medical conditions. Additionally, the modification is merely applying a known technique (a wearable comprising a transepdiermal water loss amount sensor) to a known device (skin condition device/system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Sik-Bandic teach wherein the image capturing unit comprises: a light source part comprising a plurality of light sources irradiating to the user’s skin with at lest one of white light and ultraviolet light through the first region according to control of the control unit (see para. [0011], visible/white light and ultraviolet light is emitted via opening 116); and an image capturing part dispose in the second region and configured to capture an image of a surface of the user’s skin through the skin measurement region (see para. [0102], photographing module 127 captures the images).
Bandic teaches “the device 108 may be adapted to emit polarized light”. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik-Bandic, such that the light source is configured to emit polarized light, as taught by Bandic, as it would merely be applying a known technique (irradiating with polarized light) to a known device (skin condition device/system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Sik teaches wherein a light transmitting surface is formed on an inner surface of the first region so that the light emitted from the light source part is transmitted (see fig. 2, direct emitting hole 116 forms the light transmitting surface positioned on the inner surface of the hole).
Regarding claim 6, Sik teaches wherein the imaging capturing unit is configured to output a first skin image captured by the white light with which the user’s skin is irradiated, and a third skin image captured by ultraviolet light with which the user’s skin is irradiated as the skin image (see para. [0064,0078], “selectively irradiate visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light in the other direction according to the control signal” indicates that an image can be output based on the selected light).
Sik fails to teach a second skin image captured by the polarized light with which the user's skin is irradiated.
Bandic teaches “the device 108 may be adapted to emit polarized light”. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik-Bandic, such that the light source is configured to emit polarized light, as taught by Bandic, as it would merely be applying a known technique (irradiating with polarized light) to a known device (skin condition device/system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It follows that Sik-Bandic teach wherein a second skin image captured by the polarized light, as selected by the user, with which the user’s skin is irradiated (see para. [0064,0078] of Sik).
Regarding claim 7, Sik-Bandic teach a skin condition care system, in which a skin condition measuring apparatus, user terminal, and skin care server are connected with each other, comprising: the skin condition measuring apparatus of claim 1;
a user terminal configured to control operation of the skin condition measuring apparatus based on one or more measurement modes selected from the group consisting of a plurality of measurement modes to receive a skin image for the user’s skin, and to analyze the user’s skin condition (see para. [0021,0043,0055,0064], “when the user manipulates the control unit 140 by contacting the skin in a gripped state” and “They are connected to be controlled by the control unit 140 in a state provided so as to be provided to selectively irradiate visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light in the other direction according to the control signal” indicating that the user terminal/control switch allows for control of device; an image is obtained an analyzed for skin condition); and
a skin care server configured to receive an analysis result from the user terminal, to determine the user’s skin condition, and to store a determination results, and wherein the skin measurement mode comprises a skin image measurement mode (see para. [0151-153], the steps can be performed by one or multiple processing devices in communication including receiving analysis results, computing determinations based on the data, and storing the information; one skilled in the art understands that a medical device connected to a server that stores, receives, and computes is well known and practiced in the art; by selecting the light type).
Sik fails to teach wherein the user terminal is configured to receive at least one of a transepidermal water loss amount and a skin water content.
Bandic teaches measuring skin water content with optical sensors (see para. [0061]). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik-Bandic, such that the user terminal receives water content of the user, as taught by Bandic, as it would merely be using a known technique (measuring skin water content) to improve similar device (skin condition systems) in the same way.
Ademola teaches a skin health system comprising a tewameter for measuring transepidermal water loss (see abstract and table 1) to aid in helping monitor skin health, general health, and specific medical conditions (see para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik-Bandic, such that transepidermal water loss amount is measured, as taught by Ademola, to aid in helping monitor skin health, general health, and specific medical conditions. Additionally, the modification is merely applying a known technique (a wearable comprising a transepdiermal water loss amount sensor) to a known device (skin condition device/system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Sik-Bandic-Ademola teach wherein the user terminal/control switch comprises an analysts unit (the control switch is connected to analysis unit 150 ) is configured to analyze the user’s skin condition from at least one of the transepidermal water loss amount (table 1 of Ademola), the skin water content (see para. [0061] of Bandic), and skin image provided from the skin condition measuring apparatus (see para. [0021] of Sik); and the analysis unit is configured to analyze water permeability of the user’s skin barrier layer from the transepidermal water loss amount, analyzes a water content of the stratum corneum of the user’s skin (the invention as modified by Sik-Bandic-Ademola are capable of performing such steps; see para. [0048,1545] of Bandic, “an important function of the skin is protection against the loss of water. Transepidermal Water Loss (or TWL or TEWL) is process of passive diffusion through the skin” indicating the permeability of the user’s skin is inherently analyzed from the TWL; see para. [0061] of Bandic, moisture levels of the stratum corneum can be analyzed ), and analyze a wrinkle formation degree from the skin image (see para. [0010] of Sik).
Regarding claim 10, Sik-Bandic-Ademola teach wherein the skin condition measuring apparatus is configured to output a first skin image capture by white light with which the user’s skin is irradiated, a second skin image captured by polarized light with which the user' s skin is irradiated, and a third skin image captured by ultraviolet light with which the user's skin is irradiated as the skin image (see para. [0026], “A contact light control signal according to the wavelength is generated by determining whether to select and irradiate one wavelength” indicating that an image can be output based on the selected wavelength and capable of capturing more than one image).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sik in view of Bandic and Ademola, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20210183058 A1- Previously cited), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claim 4, Sik-Bandic-Ademola fail to teach wherein the light sources part further configured a polarizing film dispose on a light emission surface of at least one light source irradiating the user’s skin with white light among the plurality of light sources.
Oh teaches a device and method for obtaining information regarding skin condition of a user comprising a light source and polarized film to filter the light source irradiated on the users skin (see para. [0066-71]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik-Bandic, such that the light source comprises a polarizing film disposed on a light emission surface, as taught by Oh, because Sik requires irradiating with polarized light, but fails to provide details. Oh teaches that polarized light can be irradiated with a light source comprising a polarizing film to obtain skin condition information.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sik in view of Bandic and Ademola, as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Selvam (US 20200367816 A1- Previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Sik-Bandic-Ademola teach wherein the user terminal comprises a control part configured to generate a control signal transmitted to the skin condition measuring apparatus based on the selected one or more measurement modes (see para. [0021] of Sik, the control switch of the user terminal generates the control signals based on the selected mode/light);
and the control signal part is configured to:
generate a control signal for operating the image capturing unit of the skin condition measuring apparatus when the skin image measurement mode is selected (see para. [0021], upon selecting the measurement mode/light a control signal to obtain an image is generated for further processing and skin condition determination).
Sik-Bandic-Ademola fail to teach generating a control signal for operating a first sensor part of the sensor of the sensor unit of the skin condition measuring apparatus when the transepidermal water loss measurement mode is selected; and generating a control signal for operating a second sensor part for operating a second sensor part of the sensor unit of the skin condition measuring apparatus when the stratum corneum hydration measurement mode is selected. It is noted that Sik teaches a plurality of sensors can be integrated for measuring different skin condition information (see para. [0019], “The sensor body according to an embodiment may be provided with at least one measurement sensor of an oil content measurement sensor, a moisture measurement sensor, an elasticity measurement sensor, and a pH measurement sensor”).
Selvam teaches a wearable device configured to perform measurements of the user’s skin to determine hydration (see abstract and para. [0076,0151,0181]). Selvam further teaches “The button 108 may also be utilized to change the operating mode of the smartwatch 200. For example, the smartwatch 200 may include a low-power monitoring mode for user status and well-being, fitness tracking for tracking the activity and actions of the user, diagnosis/testing mode for performing one or more tests, a low power location sharing mode for sharing the location of the user, a sleeping mode, a full power mode, an off mode, and any number of other modes that may be needed or required for the user”, “the display may include a multifunctional LED screen having different modes of operation to display different vital sign data. Mode selection may be performed using any suitable input, such as a dedicated mode button or a multifunction button. One or more of the wearer's heart rate, respiration rate, blood oxygen level, or other vital signs may be indicated on the display at any given time”, “The process of FIG. 21 may begin by automatically performing optical testing (step 2102). The testing may be performed periodically, based on an event (e.g., exercise, physical activity, waking up, etc.), based on biometrics, based on a location or previous location (e.g., in the bathroom, kitchen, after returning from the gym/walk, etc.), based on a request or command received from an external source” (emphasis added) which indicates that using optical sensors, vital sign sensor, etc., can be configured to be operated upon user selection of the corresponding mode. In summary, Selvam teaches a system, device and method for operating a plurality of sensors, e.g., first sensor part, second sensor part, etc., based on user selection of a diagnostic testing mode for performing one or more tests.
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Sik-Bandic-Ademola, such that control signals are generating for operating a plurality of sensor, e.g., first/second sensor part, etc., that measure physiological information, e.g., heart rate, transepidermal water loss, hydration, etc., based on selected mode, as taught by Selvam, to aid in performing biometric, activity, and location based monitoring (see para. [0033] of Selvam).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection on the grounds that a person a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to interpret such data because the tools and techniques for interpreting such data for analyzing TEWL data existed prior to the filing data and could easily be applied using standard digital signal processing or statistical analysis, on page 7 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. The question here is not enablement, rather if the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Based on the lack of explicit detail in the specification for the alleged analysis, it cannot be determined that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the terms “control unit” in claim 1, “first/ one or more second sensor parts” in clam 2, “skincare server” in claim 7, “analysis unit” in claim 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, on page 8 of the specification. The examiner disagrees. The paragraphs indicated in the Remarks that allegedly teach the structure associated with the term, in fact do not explicitly make the association. Additionally, there is no mention of a processor/microcontroller, any of the sensors listed, or cloud platform in the specification.
Applicant argues that the recited sensor/image unit, processor, and computer system are specialized devices and cannot be performed solely in the human mind, on pages 9-10 of the Remarks. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application. The components are used as they are intended and not in a special or meaningful manner, e.g., image unit for capturing an image, the generic senor unit is merely used to preform pre-solutional data gathering, and computer system performs the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the features of the claims integrate the abstract idea into a specific, non-generic application, on page 11 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. The skin condition determination does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the skin condition, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. The question is, what is done with the skin condition determination to improve the technological field, effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change, or whether a particular machine is used to make such a determination.
Applicant argues that the structural configuration and interaction of the alleged specialized hardware components, solve a concrete technological problem in skin diagnostics, on page 13 of the Remarks. While a technological problem is being solved, it is not new in the field of skin condition diagnostics nor are novel sensors/computers used in view of the cited references.
Applicant argues that the claims constitute a structural and functional advancement in the design of personal skin analysis devices, on page 15 of the Remarks, the examiner disagrees. The claims as written have failed to overcome the references cited and therefore cannot be constituted as such.
Applicant argues that the combination of references affect the core functionality, structure, or purpose of the individual references, on page 18 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. First.) while Sik does teach a membrane to protect the sensors, Bandic further teaches it is understood that one can sense a skin condition by displacing the sensor away from the skin (as in Sik) or in contact with the skin (as in the present invention). Therefore, the teachings of the limitations are taught by the references cited, the modification is obvious in light of the teachings, and the combination is reasonable since they are addressing the same problem (monitoring the skin via light). Second.) Selectively open is not required by the claims as written, only that it is open. Third.) Ademola teaches, "the wearable device may monitor skin hydration", "these devices can already be miniaturized sufficiently enough to be incorporated into the wearable device of the invention" and "The skin measurement devices may be selected from the devices and techniques in Table 1" (see para. [0073,0076,0079] and table 1). Which teaches the opposite of Applicants arguments pertaining to the lack of a handheld diagnostic device, lack of integration alongside hydration sensors, and lack of a selectable sensing mode. This argument further address Applicants argument that the motivation to substitute the uncovered sensor region of Bandic with the covered sensor region of Sik is deficient, on pages 18-19 of the Remarks.
Applicant argues that rejection rationale does not explain how the teachings of Selvam translates to diagnostic mode selection and structural integration, on page 19 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. The rejection provides clarity of how Selvam performs such processes (button and/or external source in relation to device that allows for mode selection , type of sensor, a plurality of modes, a plurality of tests) and the structural components of the claimed invention are addressed throughout the rejection of independent and dependent claims.
Applicant argument that the cited art does not teach or suggests an algorithmic or inferential analysis regarding skin permeability from TEWL, on page 20 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. Based on Applicant’s own submission of Exhibit 1, which states “TEWL reflects the inside-out perspective of the skin barrier and skin permeability” which indicates a value of TEWL reflects the skin permeability. This results in a skin permeability analysis (degraded, healthy, etc.). Additionally, the present invention’s specification also does not provide an algorithmic or inferential analysis regarding skin permeability from TEWL.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach a polarizing film on a white light source, on page 20 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. Sik teaches “the present invention is to visually confirm the shape, location, and degree of skin wrinkles by irradiating non-contact light and contact light of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared rays having different depths of penetration into the skin” (emphasis added) and Oh teaches a device and method for obtaining information regarding skin condition of a user comprising a light source and polarized film to filter the light source irradiated on the users skin (see para. [0066-71]). One of ordinary skill understands that visible light is the entire range of light wavelengths human eyes can see, which includes white light. All of the above are the reasons for the combination, by combining the polarizing film of Oh with the modified invention, will result in the present invention.
Applicant argues that the references cited does not teach claim 10, on page 20, but fails to provide any details of why the cited references in combination fail to do so. The combination of the cited reference disclose an invention that can “ select and irradiate one wavelength among infrared light having a wavelength to be irradiated, and the contact light control signal according to the non-contact light control signal and the contact light control signal A control body for generating a measurement control signal to determine whether to shoot according to the combination of the contact light and to generate a photographing execution signal to perform photographing” (emphasis added) (see para. [0021] of Sik). This teaching along with the details of the other cited references teach the other specific modifications (polarizing, etc.).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been found unpersuasive.
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 MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
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 (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791