DETAILED ACTION
Applicant' s arguments, filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 10/27/2022, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12-13, 17, and 19 are the current claims hereby under examination.
All reference to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US publication of the present application US 2023/0172530 A1.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
The following terms used throughout the claims do not appear to be common terms in the art with well understood interpretations. The below terms are thus being interpreted as defined by Applicant’s specification:
A gravity induced prominence amount is interpreted as defined in paragraph 0048 and Fig. 1 as the difference in volume between the horizontal and vertical images for the facial region illustrated by figure 1.
A gravity induced hollowness amount is interpreted as defined in paragraph 0050 and Fig. 2 as the difference in volume between the horizontal and vertical images for the facial region illustrated by figure 2.
An intrafacial movement induced sag amount is interpreted as the particular parameter calculated by equation 1 and described in paragraphs 0051-0052
An anteroposterior buccal sag amount is interpreted as the particular parameter calculated by equation 1 and described in paragraphs 0051-0052
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6, 10, 12-13, 17 and 19 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 1 and its dependents are rejected as claim 1 recites “acquiring a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity- induced hollowness amount that are based on a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” but it is unclear how “a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” is being obtained. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any manner of acquiring the three-dimensional face images, any manner of determining volumetric changes in the three-dimensional face image, and the changes in volume corresponding to the gravity-induced prominence amount, and gravity-induced hollowness amount being obtained from the particular regions of Figs. 1 and 2 as is consistent with the above described claim interpretation of these parameters. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 10 and 12.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the gravity-induced prominence amount is a difference between a volumes of an area of a subject's face in the horizontal position of the subject's face and a volume of an area in the vertical position of the subject's face, and wherein the gravity-induced hollowness is a difference between the volume of the area of the subject's face in the horizontal position of the subject's face and the volume of the area in the vertical position of the subject's face” but it is unclear if “an area” in the second line of this limitation is the same area as “an area” in the third line of this limitation. Furthermore, it would seem that the gravity-induced prominence amount is defined in the same manner as the gravity-induced hollowness since they are both “a difference” in volume of “an area” between horizontal and vertical positions. It is unclear if they are meant to refer to the same or different volume differences in the same or different areas. It is unclear if any volume change can be associated with either parameter or if the volume change must be positive or negative correspond to a particular parameter. For the purposes of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as the gravity-induced prominence amount corresponding to increased volume in the area defined by Fig. 1 and the gravity-induced hollowness amount corresponding to decreased volume in the area defined by Fig. 2. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 10, 12, and 13.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the intrafacial movement induced sag amount is a volume difference corresponding to a first sag from an upper cheek area to a lower cheek area of the subject's face, and wherein the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is a volume difference corresponding to a second sag other than the first sag from the upper cheek area to the lower cheek area of the subject's face” but it is unclear how the recited “a first sag” and “a second sag” relate to the “gravity-induced prominence amount” and “gravity induced hollowness amount” which are used to calculate the intrafacial movement amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount. It is further unclear if the “upper cheek area” and “lower cheek area” are the same as, related to, or different from “an area” of lines 6 and 7. For the purposes of this examination, the first and second sags will be interpreted as being derived from or otherwise directly related to the gravity-induced prominence amount and gravity induced hollowness amount. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 10, 12, and 13.
Claim 1 recites “calculating an updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and an updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the additional three-dimensional face images” but it is unclear if these metrics are being calculated directly from the “additional three-dimensional face images” or if the additional images are being used to calculate additional gravity-induced prominence and gravity induced hollowness amounts which are then being used to determine the “updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount” and “updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount” as these intermediate metrics are seemingly required to calculate the initial parameters to which the updated parameters are later compared. For the purposes of this examination, the calculation of the updated parameters will be interpreted as first requiring updated gravity-induced prominence/hollowness calculations from the face images and then be calculated in the same manner as the original values. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 10, 12, and 13.
Claim 1 recites “evaluating an effectiveness of the specific cosmetic treatment” but it is unclear what the output of this evaluation is intended to entail. It would appear that the evaluation is based on a comparison of the original and updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount but it is unclear how such a comparison results in an “effectiveness” of the treatment. It is unclear if the effectiveness is a measure of difference between the original and updated measurement or if the difference is compared to some type of expected response to determine if the treatment qualifies as “effective”. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as evaluating an “effect” rather than effectiveness and the effect is interpreted as the difference between the original and updated measurements. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 10, 12, and 13.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the visual score is derived based on a comparison of the subject's image to a range of reference images and assigning a score corresponding to the reference image exhibiting the highest degree of similarity” but it is unclear how the image with the “highest degree of similarity” is determined by the comparison. It is unclear what features or metrics are used in the comparison and how a similarity between the images in determined by comparing them. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any method of comparing images to determine similarity therebetween.
Claim 3 recites “a score corresponding to the reference image exhibiting the highest degree of similarity” but it is unclear if this limitation is meant to convey that the score is based on how similar the most similar reference image is to the present image or if each reference image is associated with a particular score and the present image receives the same score as the reference image to which it is most similar. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as each reference image being assigned a score and the present image receiving the same score as the most similar reference image.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the sagging skin coefficient is based on skin viscoelasticity of the subject” but it is unclear how this parameter is “based on” skin viscoelasticity since no measurement of skin viscoelasticity is used for its determination. It would seem that the coefficient may be “representative of” the users skin viscoelasticity but the phrase “based on” implies that the skin viscoelasticity is known and used in its generation which does not appear to be the case. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “representative of” rather than “based on”.
Claim 4 recites “acquiring a sagging skin coefficient based on skin viscoelasticity of the subject acquired by a viscoelasticity acquisition device” it is unclear what measured parameters constitute “skin viscoelasticity”, how such parameters are obtained from a “viscoelasticity acquisition device” what such a “viscoelasticity acquisition device” comprises, and how the “sagging skin coefficient” is acquired “based on” such a parameter. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any parameter related to skin viscoelasticity acquired using any method or device.
Claim 4 recites “calculating a visual score from the sagging skin coefficient by … and wherein the visual score is derived based on a comparison of the subject's image to a range of reference images and assigning a score corresponding to the reference image exhibiting the highest degree of similarity”. It is unclear if the visual score is being calculated from the provided equation or by the provided method of comparison. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the visual score being calculated based on the equation rather than the comparison method.
Claim 5 recites “wherein at least one of the gravity-induced prominence amount, the gravity- induced hollowness amount, the intrafacial movement induced sag amount, or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is a representative value of values calculated by using the iteratively acquired three-dimensional face images wherein the representative value of the values is an average value of the values, a median value of the values, or a mode value of the values” but it is unclear what this limitation is meant to convey. It is unclear if the limitation “the iteratively acquired three-dimensional face images” is meant to refer to the original images from which each of the listed parameters are calculated from, or the updated images acquired in amended claim 1. If the parameters are meant to be derived from the updated images then it is unclear if they are being derived in the same manner as the original parameters. If the parameters are meant to refer to the original parameters, then it is unclear what “iteratively acquired three-dimensional face images” is meant to refer to as no such limitation has been introduced in regards to the original parameters. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to convey that one of the listed parameters is an average, median, or mode value calculated from multiple images or something else. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as one of the listed parameters calculated from the original image being an average, median, or mode calculated from multiple images.
Claim 6 recites “calculating the intrafacial movement induced sag amount includes calculating, as the intrafacial movement induced sag amount, a representative value of the intrafacial movement induced sag amounts, which are calculated from the intrafacial movement induced sag amounts and the gravity-induced prominence amounts of the iteratively acquired three-dimensional face images” but it is unclear what this limitation is intended to convey. It is unclear what “a representative value of the intrafacial movement induced sag amounts” entails and how it differs from “intrafacial movement induced sag amounts” it is further unclear how such a ‘representative value” is being calculated from the provided inputs. In particular, it appears that the metric is being calculated from itself the gravity-induced prominence amount. It is unclear how the and the gravity-induced prominence amount is related to the calculation. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as calculating an average, median, or mode intrafacial movement induced sag amount from a plurality of intrafacial movement induced sag amount measurements.
Claim 6 recites “the iteratively acquired three-dimensional face images” but it is unclear if the referenced images are intended to refer to the images captured after treatment is performed, before treatment is performed, or both. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to images taken before treatment since the recited parameters are not the updated parameters.
Claim 10 recites “a device for evaluating a type of sagging and a degree thereof” but the device does not recite the determination of such parameters and it is thus unclear what the device is if it does not perform its recited function. In particular claim 10 recites “wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected among a plurality of cosmetic treatments according to an evaluated type of sagging based on which of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is greater” but the actual evaluation of the type of sagging is not seemingly performed by the device and the device further does not determine a degree of sagging. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a device. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claims 12, and 13.
Claim 10 recites “iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face, wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected among a plurality of cosmetic treatments according to an evaluated type of sagging based on which of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is greater, wherein the plurality of cosmetic treatments comprises cosmetics, supplements, massages, or training specifically selected for resolving the type of sagging” but it is unclear if the device is meant to carry out the treatment and evaluation of a type of sagging or if these parameters are merely describing how the treatment that was applied to the user and are not encompassed by the device itself. The claim is written in such a manner that the performing of the treatment and evaluation of the type of sagging are not performed by the device. Rather the device itself is limited by the iterative acquisition of additional images after such a treatment then calculating the effectiveness of the treatment based on the image. The performance of the treatment itself, the evaluation of a type of sagging, and selection of the treatment to be applied are not written in such a way as to limit the device. For the purposes of this examination, the device will not be considered to include the performance of the treatment itself, the evaluation of a type of sagging, and selection of the treatment to be applied. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claims 12, and 13.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the processor of the image capturing terminal is configured to generate data of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” but it is unclear how the processor of the image capturing terminal generates this data and from where the “three-dimensional face images” originate. For the purposes of this examination, the face images will be interpreted as originating from the measurement device of the image capturing terminal and the data will be interpreted as being generated through any image processing means.
Claim 13 recites “calculate, from the data, a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity-induced hollowness amount that are acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” but it is unclear if “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position” and “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” are meant to refer to the data generated by the image capturing terminal or different data. It would seem that the processor of the image capturing terminal does not generate “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position” but rather only the “three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position” the processor of the image capturing terminal further generates “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” but it is unclear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” used by the processor of the analysis terminal. For the purposes of this examination, the processor of the analysis terminal will be considered to use the data generated by the processor of the image capturing terminal.
Claim 13 recites the processor of the server configured to “acquire the gravity-induced prominence amount and the gravity-induced hollowness amount” but it is unclear from where this data is acquired. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the data being acquired from the analysis terminal.
Claim 13 recites “iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position” but this function appears to be performed by the processor of the server. It is unclear how the server iteratively acquires additional images as it does not appear to include any data gathering modality. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as receiving additional images from the image capturing terminal.
Claim 17 recites “acquiring a gravity-induced prominence amount that is acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” but it is unclear how this value is “acquired” from “a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” it is unclear what “change” is associated with this limitation and how these changes are calculated. It is further unclear how the “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image” is obtained. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any manner of acquiring the three-dimensional face images, any manner of determining volumetric changes in the three-dimensional face image, and the changes in volume corresponding to the gravity-induced prominence amount being obtained from the particular regions of Fig. 1 as is consistent with the above described claim interpretation of these parameters.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the gravity-induced prominence amount is a difference between a volumes of an area of a subject's face in the horizontal position of the subject's face and a volume of an area in the vertical position of the subject's face,” but it is unclear if “an area” in the second line of this limitation is the same area as “an area” in the third line of this limitation. For the purposes of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as the gravity-induced prominence amount corresponding to increased volume in the area defined by Fig. 1.
Claim 17 recites “acquiring a visual score from a facial image of the subject in the vertical position” and “wherein the visual score is derived based on a comparison of the subject's image to a range of reference images and assigning a score corresponding to the reference image exhibiting the highest degree of similarity” but it is unclear how the image with the “highest degree of similarity” is determined by the comparison. It is unclear what features or metrics are used in the comparison and how a similarity between the images in determined by comparing them. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any method of comparing images to determine similarity therebetween.
Claim 17 recites “a score corresponding to the reference image exhibiting the highest degree of similarity” but it is unclear if this limitation is meant to convey that the score is based on how similar the most similar reference image is to the present image or if each reference image is associated with a particular score and the present image receives the same score as the reference image to which it is most similar. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as each reference image being assigned a score and the present image receiving the same score as the most similar reference image.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the sagging skin coefficient is based on skin viscoelasticity of the subject” but it is unclear how this parameter is “based on” skin viscoelasticity since no measurement of skin viscoelasticity is used for its determination. It would seem that the coefficient may be “representative of” the users skin viscoelasticity but the phrase “based on” implies that the skin viscoelasticity is known and used in its generation which does not appear to be the case. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “representative of” rather than “based on”.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the type of sagging is categorized based on presence or absence of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount, wherein the degree is determined by comparing the intrafacial movement induced sag amount with a corresponding average value for individuals of a same age group as the subject” but no step of calculating an intrafacial movement induced sag amount has been recited. It is unclear what this parameter entails and how it is calculated. For the purposes of this examination, the intrafacial movement induced sag amount will be interpreted as being calculated based on the gravity-induced prominence amount.
Claim 17 recites “evaluating the type of sagging and the degree of the sagging based on the sagging skin coefficient as an index, wherein the type of sagging is categorized based on presence or absence of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount, wherein the degree is determined by comparing the intrafacial movement induced sag amount with a corresponding average value for individuals of a same age group as the subject” but it is unclear how the “sagging skin coefficient” is used as an index since it would seem that both the type and degree of sagging are determined using presence of the intrafacial movement induced sag and the comparison of the intrafacial movement induced sag to an average value. It is unclear what the sagging skin coefficient is used for. For the purposes of this examination, the sagging skin coefficient will be interpreted as another parameter which represents the type or degree of sagging.
Claim 17 recites “iteratively acquiring additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected among a plurality of cosmetic treatments according to the evaluated type of sagging, wherein the plurality of cosmetic treatments comprises cosmetics, supplements, massages, or training specifically selected for resolving the type of sagging” but it is unclear if the limitation “performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected among a plurality of cosmetic treatments according to the evaluated type of sagging, wherein the plurality of cosmetic treatments comprises cosmetics, supplements, massages, or training specifically selected for resolving the type of sagging” is meant to further limit the method of meant to merely describe when the additional face images are acquired. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as not including the performing of selecting of the treatment as part of the claimed method. Rather these elements are considered as merely describing when the additional image acquiring takes place.
Claim 17 recites “calculating an updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount from the additional three-dimensional face images” but it is unclear how this calculation is performed using the additional face images. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring updated gravity induced prominence and hollowness values and using the same equation used for the calculation of the original intrafacial movement induced sag amount.
Claim 17 recites “evaluating an effectiveness of the specific cosmetic treatment by comparing the intrafacial movement induced sag amount with the updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount” but it is unclear what the output of this evaluation is intended to entail. It would appear that the evaluation is based on a comparison of the original and updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount but it is unclear how such a comparison results in an “effectiveness” of the treatment. It is unclear if the effectiveness is a measure of difference between the original and updated measurement or if the difference is compared to some type of expected response to determine if the treatment qualifies as “effective”. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as evaluating an “effect” rather than effectiveness and the effect is interpreted as the difference between the original and updated measurements.
Claim 17 recites “acquiring a visual score from a facial image of the subject in the vertical position” and “wherein the skin score is derived based on a comparison…” and thus it is unclear whether the skin score is considered to be “acquired” or “derived” and if these different methods of obtaining the skin score are meant to refer to the same method step. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations will be interpreted as referring to the same method step.
Claim 19 recites “evaluating three of a visual score on sagging of a face, the intrafacial movement induced sag amount of the face, the anteroposterior buccal sag amount of the face, or a sagging skin coefficient of the face; and evaluating, based on the three evaluations, one other of the three of the visual score on sagging of the face, the intrafacial movement induced sag amount of the face, the anteroposterior buccal sag amount of the face, or the sagging skin coefficient of the face” but it is unclear how the “visual score on sagging of a face” or “sagging skin coefficient of the face” are evaluated. It is further unclear how three of these elements can be used to evaluate the fourth element. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as using any evaluation method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12-13, and 17 are 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 1 recites “acquiring a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity- induced hollowness amount that are acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” which appears to indicate that the “gravity-induced prominence amount” and “gravity-induced hollowness amount” may be “acquired” from any type of change in “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject” between a horizontal and vertical position. However Applicant’s specification appears to require that these parameters are “acquired” from particular facial regions and that the prominence is representative of increased volume in a specific region while hollowness is represented by a decrease in volume from a particular location. As described in paragraphs 0047-0050 and Figs. 1-2 on Applicant’s specification. As such, the claimed “acquiring” step is not fully supported by Applicant’s specification. It is noted that the newly added limitation “wherein the gravity-induced prominence amount is a difference between a volumes of an area of a subject's face in the horizontal position of the subject's face and a volume of an area in the vertical position of the subject's face, and wherein the gravity-induced hollowness is a difference between the volume of the area of the subject's face in the horizontal position of the subject's face and the volume of the area in the vertical position of the subject's face” does not clearly define what the parameters entail, or from where they are generated in a manner commensurate in scope with Applicant’s specification. This rejection is further applied to the similar limitations of claims 10, 12, and 13.
Examiner’s Note: It would seem that the respective cheek regions may be described using terms similar to those used in the specification such as upper, lower, and lateral cheek areas. As such, the claim may read “acquiring a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity-induced hollowness amount from a change in volume in an upper, lower, and lateral cheek area between a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position, wherein the gravity-induced prominence amount is an increased volume of the lower cheek area of the subject's face in the vertical position as compared to the horizontal position, and wherein the gravity-induced hollowness is a decreased volume of the upper and the lateral cheek areas of the subject's face in the vertical position as compared to the horizontal position” or the like to correspond to the descriptions provided in paragraphs 0047-0050 and Figs. 1-2.
Claim 1 recites “calculating at least one of an intrafacial movement induced sag amount and an anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the gravity-induced prominence amount and the gravity-induced hollowness amount” which encompasses any method of calculating the recited parameters using the given inputs. However, Applicant’s specification paragraph 0051 and equation 1 indicate that a specific calculation method is required to obtain the recited “intrafacial movement induced sag amount” and “anteroposterior buccal sag amount”. As such, the present claim is not full supported by the specification. The added limitation of “wherein the intrafacial movement induced sag amount is a volume difference corresponding to a first sag from an upper cheek area to a lower cheek area of the subject's face, and wherein the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is a volume difference corresponding to a second sag other than the first sag from the upper cheek area to the lower cheek area of the subject's face” defines the limitations of “an intrafacial movement induced sag amount and an anteroposterior buccal sag amount” but does not further limit their calculation method which is the basis of the above rejection. This rejection is further applied to the similar limitations of claims 10, 12, and 13.
Claim 1 recites “evaluating an effectiveness of the specific cosmetic treatment” but the specification does not appear to disclose how an “effectiveness” of a treatment is determined. In particular, the specification teaches that the effect of a treatment may be measured in paragraphs 0189-0190 but measuring an effect of the treatment is not considered to be sufficient for claimed evaluating of an “effectiveness” because “effectiveness” implies that there is a particular intended goal of the treatment and the effect is being measured against the intended effect. The specification does not appear to describe such a comparison. Rather the specification appear to be directed towards determining the effect of the treatment without a specific intended effect to compare to. This rejection is further applied to the similar limitations of claims 10, 12, 13, and 17.
Claim 10 recites “an evaluated type of sagging based on which of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is greater” which appears to indicate that the “type of sagging” is determined based on a degree of “intrafacial movement induced sag amount” or “anteroposterior buccal sag amount”. However, Applicant’s specification paragraphs 0122-0132 indicate that it is the presence of these elements that determine a sagging type rather than which is greater. As such, the specification does not appear to support the claimed determination of sagging type based on which of the two parameters is greater, rather the specification determines the sagging type based on their presence. This rejection is further applied to the similar limitations of claims 12 and 13.
Claim 13 recites “a measurement device” but the specification does not support the full scope of the image capturing terminal comprising any and all possible “measurement device”. In particular, it would seem that the image capturing terminal comprises an 3D image capturing device as the measurement device as described by its function in paragraph 0091.
Claim 17 recites “acquiring a gravity-induced prominence amount that is acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position, wherein the gravity-induced prominence amount is a difference between a volumes of an area of a subject's face in the horizontal position of the subject's face and a volume of an area in the vertical position of the subject's face” which appears to indicate that the “gravity-induced prominence amount” may be “acquired” from any type of change in “a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject” between a horizontal and vertical position. However Applicant’s specification appears to require that this parameter is “acquired” from a particular facial region and that the prominence is representative of increased volume in the specific region. As described in paragraphs 0047-0050 and Figs. 1-2 on Applicant’s specification. As such, the claimed “acquiring” step from “an area” is not fully supported by Applicant’s specification.
Claim 17 recites “evaluating the type of sagging and the degree of the sagging based on the sagging skin coefficient as an index, wherein the type of sagging is categorized based on presence or absence of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount, wherein the degree is determined by comparing the intrafacial movement induced sag amount with a corresponding average value for individuals of a same age group as the subject” however the specification does not appear to describe how the sagging skin coefficient is us as an index. Paragraph 0168 does recite that the sagging skin coefficient may be used as an index to determine the type and degree of sagging, but a description as to how this is performed and how it relates to the previously described types and degree of sagging is not provided. The specification merely provides a generic statement of functionality which is insufficient to support the claim language.
Claim 19 recites “evaluating three of a visual score on sagging of a face, the intrafacial movement induced sag amount of the face, the anteroposterior buccal sag amount of the face, or a sagging skin coefficient of the face; and evaluating, based on the three evaluations, one other of the three of the visual score on sagging of the face, the intrafacial movement induced sag amount of the face, the anteroposterior buccal sag amount of the face, or the sagging skin coefficient of the face” but the specification describes that each of these elements are acquired using particular scoring techniques or equations. The specification does not fully support the claimed scope of any method of evaluating these parameters based on three others of these parameters.
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 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 10 and 12-13 are directed to a method of processing three-dimensional images using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 12-13 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019), and the 2024 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol 89, No. 137, page 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 10 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 10 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 10 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 10 recites the following limitations:
[A1] calculate at least one of an intrafacial movement induced sag amount or an anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the gravity-induced prominence amount and the gravity-induced hollowness amount
[B1] output the intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount
[C1] calculate an updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and an updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the additional three-dimensional face images
[D1] evaluate an effectiveness of the specific cosmetic treatment by comparing the intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount with the updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount
These elements [A1]-[D1] of claim 10 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 10 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] a processor
[B2] a memory
[C2] acquire a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity-induced hollowness amount that are acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position
[D2] iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face
These elements [A2]-[D2] of claim 10 does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the elements [C2]-[D2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the elements [A2]-[B2] are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f)
Step 2B: Claim 10 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation “acquiring a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity-induced hollowness amount that are acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the nature of the data acquired and does not incorporate the data acquirer as part of the claimed invention. Additionally, the limitation “iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face, wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected among a plurality of cosmetic treatments according to an evaluated type of sagging based on which of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is greater, wherein the plurality of cosmetic treatments comprises cosmetics, supplements, massages, or training specifically selected for resolving the type of sagging” merely describes when the “additional three-dimensional face images” of the subject are acquired. The claim language does not incorporate the performing of the treatment or how it is selected into the device itself. It merely describes the treatment performed outside of the device that the additional images are acquired after.
Further, the elements [A2]-[B2] do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
The analysis of claim 12 is done in light of the analysis of claim 10 and may be abridged where limitations are similar.
The analysis of claim 12 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 12 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 12 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 12 recites the following limitations:
[A1] calculating at least one of an intrafacial movement induced sag amount or an anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the gravity-induced prominence amount and the gravity-induced hollowness amount
[B1] output the intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount
[D1] calculate an updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and an updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the additional three-dimensional face images
[D1] evaluate an effectiveness of the specific cosmetic treatment by comparing the intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount with the updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount
These elements [A1]-[D1] of claim 12 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 12 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
[B2] a device for evaluating a type of sagging and a degree thereof
[C2] acquire a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity-induced hollowness amount that are acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position
[D2] iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face,
These elements [A2]-[D2] of claim 12 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the elements [C2]-[D2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the elements [A2]-[B2] are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f)
Step 2B: Claim 12 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation “acquiring a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity-induced hollowness amount that are acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the nature of the data acquired and does not incorporate the data acquirer as part of the claimed invention. Additionally the limitation “iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face, wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected among a plurality of cosmetic treatments according to an evaluated type of sagging based on which of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is greater, wherein the plurality of cosmetic treatments comprises cosmetics, supplements, massages, or training specifically selected for resolving the type of sagging” merely describes when the “additional three-dimensional face images” of the subject are acquired. The claim language does not incorporate the performing of the treatment or how it is selected into the device itself. It merely describes the treatment performed outside of the device that the additional images are acquired after.
Further, the elements [A2]-[B2] do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). In particular, the limitation “a device for evaluating a type of sagging and a degree thereof” only requires the device being capable of executing a program.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
The analysis of claim 13 is done in light of the analysis of claims 10, and 12 and may be abridged where limitations are similar.
The analysis of claim 13 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 13 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 13 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 13 recites the following limitations:
[A1] calculate, from the data, a gravity-induced prominence amount and a gravity-induced hollowness amount that are acquired from a change between a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three- dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position
[B1] calculating an intrafacial movement induced sag amount or an anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the gravity-induced prominence amount and the gravity-induced hollowness amount
[C1] output the intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount
[D1] calculate an updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and an updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount from the additional three-dimensional face images
[E1] evaluate an effectiveness of the specific cosmetic treatment by comparing the intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the anteroposterior buccal sag amount with the updated intrafacial movement induced sag amount and the updated anteroposterior buccal sag amount
These elements [A1]-[E1] of claim 13 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 13 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] an image capturing terminal including a measurement device, a memory, and a processor
[B2] an analysis terminal including a receiver, transmitter, a memory, and a processor
[C2] a server including a memory and a processor
[D2] generate data of a three- dimensional face image of a subject in a horizontal position and a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional face image of the subject in a vertical position
[E2] acquire the gravity induced prominence amount and the gravity induced hollowness amount
[F2] iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face
These elements [A2]-[F2] of claim 13 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the elements [A2] and [D2]-[F2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the elements [B2]-[C2], are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f)
Step 2B: Claim 13 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation “an image capturing terminal including a measurement device, a memory, and a processor” is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the data acquirer is nothing more than a three-dimensional image capturing device. Such devices are conventional as evidenced by Applicant’s lack of a particular description of such a device that would be required to carry out the recited data acquisition such as in paragraph 0091. Furthermore, the elements [D2]-[F2] merely describe the nature of the data obtained and do not incorporate a particular data capturing device into the claim. Additionally the limitation “iteratively acquire additional three-dimensional face images of the subject in the horizontal position and the vertical position after performing a specific cosmetic treatment on the subject's face, wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected among a plurality of cosmetic treatments according to an evaluated type of sagging based on which of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is greater, wherein the plurality of cosmetic treatments comprises cosmetics, supplements, massages, or training specifically selected for resolving the type of sagging” merely describes when the “additional three-dimensional face images” of the subject are acquired. The claim language does not incorporate the performing of the treatment or how it is selected into the system itself. It merely describes the treatment performed outside of the system and that the additional images are acquired after.
Further, the elements [B2]-[C2], do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 1 and 17 and their dependents each substantially recite the limitation of “performing a specific cosmetic treatment from a plurality of cosmetic treatments based on the evaluated type of sagging, wherein the specific cosmetic treatment is selected according to which of the intrafacial movement induced sag amount or the anteroposterior buccal sag amount is greater, wherein the plurality of cosmetic treatments comprises cosmetics, supplements, massages, or training specifically selected for resolving the type of sagging” which is considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the method includes the application of a treatment to the patient and the treatment being determined based on an output of the method. Claims 10 and 12-13 are directed towards devices/systems which do not incorporate this step as a step that is carried out by the device. Rather this step is recited in claims 10 and 12-13 as a description of what occurs prior to acquiring additional data.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record as best understood in light of the above presented clarity issues and given the present claim interpretation is considered to be:
Kimura the machine English translation of Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP 2014004105 A hereinafter Kimura. Kimura teaches a method for evaluating the amount of skin sag by analyzing images of both horizontal and vertical positions of a subject is provided. In the method, a measurement point is set when imaging the horizontal position, and a measurable object having measurable means is applied an area around the measurement point so that it is at the center of the area. With use of the measurable object, three-dimensional numerical data on displacement distance of each measurement point that is obtained by superimposing the image of vertical position on the image of the horizontal position can be analyzed on two-dimensional plane, so that the actual amount of skin sag can be measured easily and directly (Abstract). Kimura teaches that the absolute amount of skin sagging is calculated using the horizontal and vertical facial images of the subject. A composite image of the subject is created by superimposing the two images. The moving distance of a mark is measured and the absolute amount of slack is obtained using analysis software (Page 3 paragraph 2). The facial measurements can be performed over time by creating a face mold sheet that maps characteristic features of the user’s face. The face mold sheet is used to ensure that the target site being measured is the same each time (Page 5 paragraph 9)
Saito “Development of a new evaluation method for cheek sagging using a Moire 3D analysis system” published by Skin Research and Technology, 2008 hereinafter Saito. Saito teaches that a type of sagging evaluation method includes a visual scoring method that compares a photo of the subject to a photo scale of different degrees of sagging and matching the subject to the degree of sagging most appropriate (Abstract: paragraph 2). Saito teaches a system using a 3D camera to image a user’s face with points marked thereon. Images were taken of the subject facing frontward and of the subject facing downward (Materials and methods: Measurement apparatus and photography sections). The points marked on the user’s face in each image are analyzed to determine the 3D displacement of each point from the posture transition (Materials and methods: Analysis of photographic data). The measurement is repeated and the mean and standard deviation of displacme3nt in each direction for each point is determined. A linear regression was utilized to determine a relationship between age and displacement and Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the correlation between the visual sag score and displacement (Materials and Methods: Analysis of precision measurement and Statistical procedures; Fig. 3).
Murakami the machine English translation of Japanese Patent Number JP 2942502 B2 hereinafter Murakami teaches an apparatus and a method for measuring the amount of sagging of the skin (Abstract). Murakami teaches a system which measures an amount of sagging of a user’s skin when changing from a horizontal to a vertical position by measuring a distance between a reference point and a number of measurement points. The sagging in the vertical direction is considered the component induced by gravitational load (Page 2 paragraphs 2-4). The method involves marking a plurality of skin sites which are a plurality of measurement points and then photographing the skin of the face in the horizontal position and the vertical position (Page 3 paragraph 3). The amount of sagging skin is then calculated by measuring a distance between each marked measurement point and the reference point. The distance is calculated from the images using an image analysis processing device (Page 3 paragraph 4).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2013/0172691 A1 hereinafter Tran. Tran teaches a system which may analyze changes in facial symmetries by superimposing newly acquired 3D anatomy structure to a historical 3D anatomy structure to detect sagging or stretching in the face and eyes (Paragraph 0128). The system may use a set of base 3D shapes to represent certain facial effects and may interpolate the rest of the face chape by blending or interpolating the base shapes by applying different weights to each base shape (Paragraph 0129). The system may utilize a 3D camera to acquire the 3D shapes (Paragraph 0130). The collected 3D images are analyzed to extract face shapes and the appropriate features are detected and attached to each face shape. The features may be animated or blended by changing the weight of different shapes. The system may then super-impose two 3D face shaped to detect abnormal facial change such as sagging (Paragraphs 0131-0132).
None of Kimura, Saito, Murakami, and/or Tran either alone or in combination teach or reasonably suggest the calculation of “a gravity-induced prominence amount”, “a gravity induced hollowness amount”, “an intrafacial movement induced sag amount”, and/or “an anteroposterior buccal sag amount” as defined by Applicant’s specification and required by claims 1, 10, 12, and 13. Claim 17 further requires the calculation of “a gravity induced prominence amount” which is not taught as described above and further requires a particular equation to calculate “a sagging skin coefficient” which is not taught or reasonably suggested by any of Kimura, Saito, Murakami, and/or Tran either alone or in combination.
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 MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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 Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights