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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that no cited reference accounts for the deficiencies of Nichols and Tharp of the identification of the skin imperfection, and hiding the skin imperfection using the nozzle and depositing of a cosmetic ink composition. Examiner asserts that as noted in the updated rejection below, Nichols teaches of the sensor to identify the skin imperfection at [0101] and Tharp recites the depositing of crème to treat the deficiencies of wrinkles (the skin imperfection as noted in the rejection below. Applicant further argues that Nichols does not teach the elements of the graphical user interface as amended related to displaying the user’s specific skin type, for example. Examiner asserts that that noted in the rejection below, Nichols does teach the specific type of skin of the user as noted in [0109] and Figure 15A. Applicant further argues that it would have not been obvious to modify Nichols so to disclose the claimed skincare devices and to disclose the recited portion of the user-specific electronic analysis on the GUI. Examiner further asserts that the other references as cited account for the deficiencies of Nichols with respect to the amended claims and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it would be obvious to modify Nichols for the claims as amended.
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.
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, 5, 7-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0210332 A1 to Nichols (“Nichols”) in view of US 2018/0280675 A1 to Tharp et al. (“Tharp”):
Regarding claim 1:
Nichols teaches a skincare and facial scanning system configured to provide skincare device connectivity and setting configurations, the skincare and facial scanning system comprising: ([0061]- overall skincare system described and further shown in Figure 1 that is connected to a computing device such as a mobile phone as described in [0064], and where device settings can be recommended and outputted as described in [0103].)
a skincare device comprising a sensor configured to scan human skin to identify a skin imperfection …; and ([0101]- use of a sensor in the system on the skin of the user to measure skin characteristics. [0101]- wrinkles are detected by the sensors (interpreted as the skin imperfection).)
a skincare application (app) comprising computing instructions and communicatively coupled to the skincare device, wherein the computing instructions of the skincare app, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: ([0064]- system is controlled by a mobile device which has an application and user interface, where the system uses a processor as described in [0065]. Figure 1 shows how the mobile device and the skin care device are connected.)
generate a user-specific electronic analysis based on use of the skincare device on skin of a face portion of the user, ([0101]- analysis of skin properties based on the sensor data. [0102]- sensor inputs put into a machine learning model for further analysis. [0103]- system generates recommendations of skincare products based on the analysis (use of the user’s input images and sensor data is interpreted to make the analysis user-specific, and use of machine learning model is interpreted as the electronic analysis).)
wherein at least a portion of the user-specific electronic analysis is configured for display on a graphic user interface, said portion comprising one or more of an amount of the cosmetic ink composition deposited on the skin of the user, an amount of the cosmetic ink composition remaining in the skincare device, a number of scans of the skin of the user with the device, a time or a duration of usage of the skincare device by the user, data indicating a specific type of skin of the user and data indicating one of weather or season data during the use of the device by the user. ([0098, 0099]- use of the display of the device with an interactive menu of the system to display the recommendations of treatments from the analysis (interpreted as a portion of the analysis configured to display on a GUI). [0109]- recites the display of the user interface of the app for the user where information about the skin is displayed for the user including skin type as further shown in Figure 15A (interpreted as data indicating a specific type of skin of the user).)
Nichols however does not explicitly teach:
and one or more nozzles configured to deposit a cosmetic ink composition onto human skin to hide or camouflage the skin imperfection
Tharp however teaches before the effective filing date of the current invention of an integrated system for cosmetic care that has a needling device used for the subject’s skin, and further has the use of a mobile device app for controlling the delivery [0005, 0225]. The device has removable nozzles that can attach to the cosmetic care system [0188]. The nozzles can administer liquids for the skin (interpreted as depositing a cosmetic ink composition onto the skin) [0193]. The device can be used for administering the liquid with the applicator for an agent (interpreted as a cosmetic ink composition) for the skin imperfections, which includes wrinkles [0234, 0274].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have one nozzle configured to deposit a cosmetic ink composition onto human skin for hiding the skin imperfection as in Tharp in the system of Nichols with the motivation of providing improved cosmetic composition delivery to a user’s skin as taught by Tharp over that of Nichols.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected in a similar manner as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nichols further teaches wherein usage data defining use of the skincare device is captured over time including at a first time and a second time, and ([0064, 0072]- monitor use of personal care treatment and can track the taking of a series of pictures by the care device (tracking of when the photos from the system were taken in series interpreted as capturing over time including a first and second time as part of the series.)
wherein the user-specific electronic analysis is based on tracking usage data captured at the first time and the second time. ([0072]- based on the series of images, treatment applied to the skin can be evaluated.)
Claim 18 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nichols further teaches wherein the computing instructions of the skincare app, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain a condition status of the skincare device, and ([0073]- API tracks the operational modes of the device (interpreted as obtaining a condition status of the skincare device).)
generate device-specific data for the skincare device. ([0073]- operational mode can be tailored (interpreted as generating device-specific data).)
Regarding claim 8:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Nichols further teaches wherein the computing instructions of the skincare app, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: generation a recommendation for a product based on at least one of: the condition status of the skincare device, the use of the skincare device on skin of the face portion of the user, the use of the skincare device on skin of a body portion of the user. ([0073]- based on the operation of the device (interpreted as the condition status), system can recommend a lotion product to improve the condition of the skin)
Regarding claim 9:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Nichols further teaches wherein the recommendation is further based on user data as provided by the user to the skincare app. ([0098]- user input)
Regarding claim 10:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Nichols further teaches wherein the computing instructions of the skincare app, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: upgrade a firmware of the skincare device based on at least one of: the condition status of the skincare device or the use of the skincare device on skin of the face portion of the user, wherein the firmware causes a new or different operation of the skincare device. ([0073]- operation of the device can be updated (interpreted as updating the firmware to then cause a different operation of the skincare device).)
Regarding claim 11:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nichols further teaches wherein the computing instructions of the skincare app, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a device setting configurable by the user, and adjust an operation of the skincare device. ([0109]- user through the user interface can make a selection for the function of the device including taking a scan, for example as shown in Figure 15A (interpreted as receiving a device setting from the user and adjust operation of the skincare device).)
Regarding claim 12:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Nichols further teaches wherein adjusting the operation of the skincare device comprises at least one of: printing a different quantity of cosmetic ink composition; providing information about the skincare device in a display, alerting or modifying a display setting of the skincare device; or altering an output sound of the skincare device. ([0103]- output of model used for recommending device settings for the user’s use of the device.)
Regarding claim 13:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nichols further teaches wherein the device setting is a predefined device setting causing the skincare device to operate in a predefined device mode. ([0109]- user through the user interface can make a selection for the function of the device including taking a scan, for example as shown in Figure 15A (setting already shown in the user interface interpreted as it being a predefined setting to operate the device in a predefined device mode).)
Claims 2-4, 6, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0210332 A1 to Nichols (“Nichols”) in view of US 2018/0280675 A1 to Tharp et al. (“Tharp”) in further view of US 2020/0323337 A1 to Miller et al. (“Miller”):
Regarding claim 2:
Nichols/Tharp teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nichols however does not teach:
wherein the skincare device further comprises an identification certificate stored on a memory of the skincare device, and
wherein the identification certificate is configured to uniquely identify the skincare device to the skincare app upon a connection between the skincare device and the skincare app.
Miller teaches before the effective filing date of the current invention of a skincare treatment system with the use of tokens [0012, 0015]. Authorization tokens are used to activate the personal care device and can be scanned on the personal care device [0043] (interpreted as the skincare device and where the token is interpreted as the identification certificate, and the use of the token at the skin device recites the storage of the certificate on the skincare device) [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the identification certificate stored in the skincare device where the certificate uniquely identifies the skincare device upon connection to the device as in Miller in the system of Nichols/Tharp with the motivation of providing a more secure use of a skincare device as taught by Miller over that of Nichols/Tharp.
Claim 15 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3:
Nichols/Tharp/Miller teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Nichols however does not teach:
wherein the connection is a persistent connection maintaining connectivity between the skincare device and the skincare app for a plurality of uses of the skincare device.
Miller teaches before the effective filing date of the current invention of a connection between the devices using a wireless connection where the usage amount is tracked (pairing of the devices after the authorized activation interpreted as a persistent connection between the devices) [0039, 0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the persistent connection between the skincare device and skincare app for uses as in Miller in the system of Nichols/Tharp/Miller with the motivation of providing an improved connection between the app and skincare device as taught by Miller over that of Nichols/Tharp/Miller.
Claim 16 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4:
Nichols/Tharp/Miller teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Nichols further teaches wherein usage or device settings data defining the use or operation of the skincare device is associated with the digital account of the user ([0109]- Figure 15A shows the user interface of the device where settings can be configured and where the interface shows the name and skin condition of the user (use of the personalized UI specific to the user interpreted as a digital account of the user where device settings define the use of the skincare device).)
Nichols however does not teach:
wherein the computing instructions of the skincare app, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: pair the identification certificate of the skincare device to a digital account of the user,
Miller teaches before the effective filing date of the current invention or reviewing amounts of authorized usage and manage account information for the device and where a unique identifier is stored with a user account (interpreted as pair the identification certificate of the skincare device to a user digital account) [0032, 0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to pair the identification certificate of the skincare device to a user digital account as in Miller in the system of Nichols/Tharp/Miller with the motivation of providing improved security for the use of the skincare device as taught by Miller over that of Nichols/Tharp/Miller.
Claim 17 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6:
Nichols/Tharp/Miller teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Nichols further teaches wherein the usage or device settings data comprises at least one of: (1) an amount of the cosmetic ink composition deposited on the skin of the user; (2) a number of scans of the skin of the user; or (3) a time or a duration of usage of the skincare device by the user. ([0073]- system tracks operational modes to generate recommendations for the treatment given to the patient including recommending a lotion in combination with the device.)
Claim 19 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 6.
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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686