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 Amendment
The amendments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection to the claims previously applied in the office action dated 03 NOVEMBER 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 previously applied in the office action dated 03 NOVEMBER 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the term “absorbs sebum from the scalp” in line 7 is suggested to be revised to “absorbs sebum from the scalp of the user” for readability and consistency with the other scalp terms recited in the claim.
The term “a scalp type of the user” in lines 19 – 20 is suggested to be revised to “the scalp type of the user” for readability.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
there is a missing period at the end of the claim, instead shown as a “-“
the term “on the basis of data extracted” in line 2 is suggested to be revised to “on a basis of data extracted” for readability of the claim.
the term “parameter values of the scalps” in line 4 and “for each scalp” in line 6 is suggested to be revised to “parameter values of the scalps of the at least one hundred users” and “for each scalp of the at least one hundred users” for readability and consistency with the other scalp terms recited in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “by the region of the scalp” in line 3,”inflammations on the scalp” in line 6, “from follicles of the scalp”, and “wherein each scalp” in line 8 are suggested to be revised to “by the region of the scalps of the at least one hundred users”, “inflammations on the scalps of the at least one hundred users”, “from follicles of the scalps of the at least one hundred users”, and “each scalp of the scalps of the at least one hundred users” for readability and consistency with the other scalp terms recited in the claims from which this claim depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “photographs of scalps belonging to each scalp group” is suggested to be revised to “photographs of scalps of the at least one hundred users belonging to each scalp group”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites the term “The method according to claim 8”, but Claim 8 has been cancelled, preventing that dependency. This is likely a typographical error such that the intent was “The method according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to add a limitation in claim 10 of “wherein each group is associated with an anti-dandruff agent”, with the subsequent recitations of “anti-dandruff agent” are revised to “the anti-dandruff agent” for readability of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to remove the “any one of” in the term “The method according to any one of claim 12” for readability and consistency in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 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 the limitation “automatically measuring, by a controller, an upper-skin electrical conductivity or resistance value”. The specification notes at [Page 9, Lines 32 – 37] that the device includes at least two electrodes 211, 212 and a controller 210 for measuring a current that passes through the electrodes”, but provides no description of the steps or hardware necessary for the controller alone to accomplish the step of “automatically measuring”. It is not specified if this is a software or hardware component of the controller itself. Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “automatically and optically measuring by a processor, a reduction in translucency of the tape film”. The specification notes generally at [Page 7, 1st Full Paragraph] that the method may be “This method may advantageously be implemented with a processor, part of a portable
device or a computer.”, but provides no description of the steps or hardware necessary for the processor itself to both “automatically and optically” perform the measurement steps. It is not specified if this is a software or hardware component of the processor itself. Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
Similarly, Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is arranged to operate by:…automatically and optically determining a value representing a reduction in translucency of a tape film placed in the region of the scalp of the user”. The specification notes the general applicability of a processor at [Page 7, 1st Full Paragraph], but provides no description of the steps or hardware necessary for the processor itself to both “automatically and optically” perform the measurement steps. It is not specified if this is a software or hardware component of the processor itself. Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
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 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 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 recites the term “the scalp” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term in the claim. There is no previously-recited scalp. For the purposes of examination, the term “the scalp” is deemed to claim “a user’s scalp”. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the term “automatically measuring, by a controller, an upper-skin electrical conductivity or resistance value” in lines 3 - 4. It is unclear how the controller itself has structure to perform a function of automatically measuring an upper-skin electrical conductivity or resistance value. For the purposes of examination, the term “automatically measuring, by a controller, an upper-skin electrical conductivity or resistance value” is deemed to claim, “activating measurement, using a controller, of an upper-skin electrical conductivity or resistance”. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the term “the tape film” in line 8. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited sebum-absorbing translucent tape film. For the purposes of examination, the term “the tape film” is deemed to claim “the sebum-absorbing translucent tape film.” Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the term “automatically and optically measuring by a processor, a reduction in translucency of the tape film” in lines 7 - 9. It is unclear how the processor itself has structure to perform a function of automatically and optically measure a translucency. For the purposes of examination, the term “automatically and optically measuring by a processor, a reduction in translucency of the tape film” is deemed to claim, “receiving optical measurements, using a processor, of a reduction in translucency of the sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 14 similarly recites the term “wherein the at least one processor is arranged to operate by:…automatically and optically determining a value representing a reduction in translucency of a tape film placed in the region of the scalp of the user”. Similar to above, it is unclear how the processor itself has structure to perform a function of automatically and optically measure a translucency. For the purposes of examination, the term “automatically and optically determining a value representing a reduction in translucency of a tape film placed in the region of the scalp of the user” is deemed to claim “automatically determining value representing an optically-measured reduction in translucency of a tape film placed in the region of the scalp of the user”.
Claim 1 recites the term “by a processor” in line 10. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited processor. For the purposes of examination, the term “by a processor” is deemed to claim “by the processor”. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the term “stored reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and sebum levels” in line 13. Claim 14 similarly recites the term “to reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and sebum levels”. It is unclear if the sebum levels are obtained from the region of the scalp of this user, as with the previously-recited “sebum level in the region of the scalp of the user”, or if they are different sebum levels that could have been measured from any user. For the purposes of examination, the term “stored reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and sebum levels” in Claim 1 is deemed to claim “stored reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and reference sebum levels”, and “to reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and sebum levels” is deemed to claim “to reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and reference sebum levels”. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 (line 14) and Claim 7 (lines 1 – 2) each recite the term “the reference ranges”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited stored reference ranges. For the purposes of examination, the term “the reference ranges” is deemed to claim “the stored reference ranges.” Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 and Claim 14 each recite the terms “a hydration level”, “an upper skin conductivity”, “a Sebum level”, and “a Zein value” in each of the five “a first scalp group…”, “a second scalp group…”, etc, limitations. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the corresponding terms previously-recited in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the terms are interpreted such that there is a preceding limitation, “each of the at least five scalp groups comprising a humidity level range, a sebum level range, and a Zein level”. Then, the terms of “a hydration level”, “an upper skin conductivity”, “a Sebum level”, and “a Zein value” within each of the five scalp group limitations are interpreted as “the humidity level range”, “the upper-skin conductivity”, “the sebum level range”, and “the Zein value”, respectively. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 and Claim 14 each recite the term “a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film” in each of the five “a first scalp group…”, “a second scalp group…”, etc, limitations. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited reduction in translucency of tape film. For the purposes of examination, the term “a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film” is deemed to claim “the reduction in translucency of the sebum-absorbing translucent tape film” in Claim 1 and “the reduction in translucency of the tape film” in Claim 14. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 (lines 15 - 18) and Claim 14 (lines 19 – 22), recites the term “each scalp group being further associated with a corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with”. Looking to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, Option (1) is either Option 1a: skin care treatment, Option 1b: hair care composition, OR Option 1c: skin and hair care composition. Option (2) is either Option 2a: skin care treatment, Option 2b: hair care treatment, OR Option 2c: skin and hair care treatment. However, once the “and/or” occur, it becomes unclear how to discern the metes and bounds of what are being claimed. Further, if the “skin or hair or both care compositions” and “skin or hair or both care treatment” is intended to mean that there are either 1 or 2 options for each (1) and (2), then it becomes unclear how many groups are truly being claimed. For the purposes of examination, the term “each scalp group being further associated with a corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with” is deemed to claim “a category from the group consisting of skin care composition, hair care composition, skin care treatment, hair care treatment, and combinations thereof.” Further, based on this interpretation, further recitations of “corresponding category” are deemed to claim “category”. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 11 similarly recites the terms “the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with the” and “outputting the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2)”. In light of the interpretation above for the term recited in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, the terms “the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with the” and “outputting the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2)” are deemed to claim “the category compatible with the” and “outputting the category”.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 each recite the term “a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between” in each of their five “first scalp group…”, “second scalp group…”, etc, limitations. It is unclear if these are the same or different than the previously-recited skin and/or hair care compositions categories. For the purposes of examination (and given the interpretation of the limitation above), the term “a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions”, is deemed to claim “the category comprising between”. Claims 2 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 – 13 are similarly rejected due their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the term “comprising a hydration level value and a sebum level value for each scalp” in lines 5 – 6. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the hydration level or humidity level and sebum level values previously recited in Claim 1, from which this claim depends. For the purposes of examination, the term “comprising the hydration level value and a sebum level value for each scalp” is deemed to claim “comprising the measured humidity level value and the measured sebum level value for each scalp of the at least one hundred users.” Claims 3 and 5 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 2.
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 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 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.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1 and 14 recite (underlined are observations, judgements, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim 1
A method for determining a scalp type of a user, the method comprising:
- contacting a region of the scalp with at least two electrodes and automatically measuring, by a controller, an upper-skin electrical conductivity or resistance obtaining a value indicative of a humidity level of a region of the scalp of the user;
- contacting the region of the scalp with a sebum-absorbing translucent tape film that absorbs sebum from the scalp and changes optical translucency, and automatically and optically measuring by a processor, a reduction in translucency of the tape film to obtain obtaining a value indicative of a sebum level in the region of the scalp of the user;
- receiving, by a processor, a set comprising the measured humidity level value and the measured sebum level value, and automatically comparing, by the processor, the set to stored reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and sebum levels, the reference ranges forming at least five scalp groups, each scalp group being associated with a humidity level range and a sebum level range, each scalp group being further associated with a corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with said humidity level range and sebum level range;
- automatically identifying, by the processor and based on the comparison, a scalp type of the user among the at least five scalp groups; and
- outputting, by the processor, the identified scalp type
wherein the at least five scalp groups comprise:
- a first scalp group (1) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 40 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 20%, and the first scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 0.75.
- a second scalp group (2) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 20% and 60%, and the second scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 12% and 20% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 1;
- a third scalp group (3) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 60% and 100%, and the third scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 14% and 20% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 2.5;
- a fourth scalp group (4) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 40 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 40%, and the fourth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 2; and
- a fifth scalp group (5) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity at or above 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 60%, and the fifth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 1.5.
Claim 14
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor operatively coupled to an electrical conductivity device with a controller and electrodes, implements a method for determining a scalp type of a user, the method comprising:
- determining at the controller an electrical conductivity or resistance measure from the electrodes contacting a region of the scalp:
wherein the at least one processor is arranged to operate by:
- receiving, as an input to the at least one processor, a value indicative of a humidity level of a region of the scalp of the user and received from the controller;
- automatically and optically determining a value representing a reduction in translucency of a tape film placed in the region of the scalp of the user and indicative of a sebum level in the region of the scalp of the user;
- automatically comparing a set comprising the received value indicative of the humidity level and the value indicative of the sebum level to reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and sebum levels, the reference ranges forming at least five scalp groups, each scalp group being associated with a humidity level range and a sebum level range, each scalp group being further associated with a corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with said humidity level range and sebum level range;
- identifying, based on the comparison, a scalp type of the user among the at least five scalp groups; and
- outputting the identified scalp type, wherein the at least five scalp groups comprise:
- a first scalp group (1) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 40 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 20%, and the first scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 0.75.
- a second scalp group (2) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 20% and 60%, and the second scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 12% and 20% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 1;
- a third scalp group (3) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 60% and 100%, and the third scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 14% and 20% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 2.5;
- a fourth scalp group (4) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 40 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 40%, and the fourth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 2; and
- a fifth scalp group (5) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity at or above 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 60%, and the fifth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 1.5.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1 and 14, these limitations include:
Observation and judgment of a set comprising the measured humidity level value and the measured sebum level value,
Observation and judgment to compare the set to stored reference ranges of scalp hydration levels and sebum levels, the reference ranges forming at least five scalp groups, each scalp group being associated with a humidity level range and a sebum level range, each scalp group being further associated with a corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with said humidity level range and sebum level range;
Observation and judgment with one’s eyes to optically determine a value representing a reduction in translucency of a tape film placed in the region of the scalp of the user and indicative of a sebum level in the region of the scalp of the user
- Observation and judgment to identify, based on the Observation and judgment to compare, a scalp type of the user among the at least five scalp groups; and
- communicating the identified scalp type.
Similarly, the dependent claims include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG):
an analysis of scalp features on magnified photographs of the scalps of the at least one hundred users.
an observation and judgment of scalp features on magnified photographs of the scalps of the at least one hundred users.
an analysis of features on magnified photographs of the region of the scalp of the user and captured by an image acquisition device with a sensor unit.
an observation and judgment of features on magnified photographs of the region of the scalp of the user and captured by an image acquisition device with a sensor unit.
the reference ranges are established on the basis of data extracted from scalps of at least one hundred users
the reference ranges are established on the basis of data observed and judged from scalps of at least one hundred users
obtaining magnified photographs of the scalps of the at least one hundred users;
observation and judgment to receive magnified photographs of the scalps of the at least one hundred users;
grouping the obtained magnified photographs according to the defined at least five scalp groups;
observation and judgment to group the obtained magnified photographs according to the defined at least five scalp groups; and
for each scalp group of the at least five scalp groups, determining combinations of features found within grouped magnified photographs of scalps belonging to said scalp group.
for each scalp group of the at least five scalp groups, observation and judgment of combinations of features found within grouped magnified photographs of scalps belonging to said scalp group.
determining, based on the identified scalp type of the user, the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with the humidity level range and sebum level range of the scalp type of the user;
observation and judgment, based on the identified scalp type of the user, the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with the humidity level range and sebum level range of the scalp type of the user;
outputting the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2).
Communicating the corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions and/or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2).
obtaining a magnified photograph of the region of the scalp of the user;
observation and judgment to obtain a magnified photograph of the region of the scalp of the user;
upon identifying a number of red portions on the magnified photograph that is above a predetermined threshold, recommend a skin and/or hair care composition comprising a proportion of surfactants adapted for sensitive scalps.
upon observation and judgment of a number of red portions on the magnified photograph that is above a predetermined threshold, recommend a skin and/or hair care composition comprising a proportion of surfactants adapted for sensitive scalps.
comparing a current value indicative of the humidity level of the region of the scalp of the user and a current value indicative of the sebum level of a region of the scalp of the user to previously obtained values for the region of the scalp of the user;
observation and judgment to compare a current value indicative of the humidity level of the region of the scalp of the user and a current value indicative of the sebum level of a region of the scalp of the user to previously obtained values for the region of the scalp of the user;
upon determining that the sebum level of the region of the scalp of the user increases, output a recommendation to increase the frequency of hair wash using a hair care product compatible with the scalp type of the user;
upon observation and judgment that the sebum level of the region of the scalp of the user increases, communicate a recommendation to increase the frequency of hair wash using a hair care product compatible with the scalp type of the user;
upon determining that the sebum level of the region of the scalp of the user decreases, output a recommendation to use a hair or scalp care product comprising a proportion of surfactants.
upon observation and judgment that the sebum level of the region of the scalp of the user decreases, communicate a recommendation to use a hair or scalp care product comprising a proportion of surfactants.
all of which are grouped as mental processes or mathematical algorithms under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified in Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
“at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”
“electrical conductivity device”
“controller”
“processor”, “at least one processor”
“sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”
“non-transitory computer readable storage medium”
“an image acquisition device with a sensor unit”
Additional elements recited include “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device”, “controller”, “processor”, “at least one processor”, “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “an image acquisition device with a sensor unit”
in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective Dependent Claims). These components are recited at a high level of generality, , i.e., as a processor performing a generic function of processing data (the determining, identifying, and outputting). These generic hardware component limitations for “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device”, “controller”, “processor”, “at least one processor”, “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “an image acquisition device with a sensor unit” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1 and 14 include pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
- contacting a region of the scalp with at least two electrodes and automatically measuring, by a controller, an upper-skin electrical conductivity or resistance obtaining a value indicative of a humidity level of a region of the scalp of the user;
- contacting the region of the scalp with a sebum-absorbing translucent tape film that absorbs sebum from the scalp and changes optical translucency, and automatically and optically measuring by a processor, a reduction in translucency of the tape film to obtain obtaining a value indicative of a sebum level in the region of the scalp of the user;
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor operatively coupled to an electrical conductivity device with a controller and electrodes, implements a method for determining a scalp type of a user,
determining at the controller an electrical conductivity or resistance measure from the electrodes contacting a region of the scalp:
wherein the at least one processor is arranged to operate
the reference ranges forming at least five scalp groups, each scalp group being associated with a humidity level range and a sebum level range, each scalp group being further associated with a corresponding category of (1) skin or hair or both care compositions or (2) skin or hair or both care treatments or both (1) and (2) compatible with said humidity level range and sebum level range;
- a first scalp group (1) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 40 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 20%, and the first scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 0.75.
- a second scalp group (2) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 20% and 60%, and the second scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 12% and 20% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 1;
- a third scalp group (3) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 0 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 60% and 100%, and the third scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 14% and 20% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 2.5;
- a fourth scalp group (4) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity of 40 µS/m to 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 40%, and the fourth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 2; and
- a fifth scalp group (5) corresponding to a hydration level measurable as an upper skin conductivity at or above 80 µS/m and a Sebum level measurable as a reduction in translucency of a sebum-absorbing tape film that had been in contact with the scalp of the user between 0% and 60%, and the fifth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 10% and 18% surfactants, and have a Zein value lower than 1.5.
Further additional elements from the dependent claims include pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
measurements of biophysical parameter values of the scalps, the biophysical parameter values comprising a hydration level value and a sebum level value for each scalp
the features on the magnified photographs comprise at least one among: an intensity of light reflected by the region of the scalp; - a count of dandruff on the magnified photograph; - a count of red portions on the magnified photograph, the red portions being indicative of inflammations on the scalp; and - an amount of fluorescent light emitted from follicles of the scalp, wherein each scalp is photographed under natural light, ultraviolet light and polarized light conditions.
the first scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 0% and 2% of an anti-dandruff agent;
- the second scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 0% and 2% of an anti-dandruff agent;
- the third scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions comprising between 0% and 1% of an anti-dandruff agent;
- the fourth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions void of anti-dandruff agent; and
- the fifth scalp group is associated with a corresponding category of skin and/or hair care compositions void of anti-dandruff agent.
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device”, “controller”, “processor”, “at least one processor”, “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “an image acquisition device with a sensor unit” as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are generically recited computer and hardware elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device”, “controller”, “processor”, “at least one processor”, “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “an image acquisition device with a sensor unit” as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims).
The additional elements of the “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device”, “controller”, “processor”, “at least one processor”, “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “an image acquisition device with a sensor unit” in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device” and “controller” are described generically as part of a “measuring device” on [Page 1, Lines 33 – 34] and [Page 9, Lines 32 – 35] with “…hydration levels of the scalp were measured using a measuring device typically comprising electrodes as represented on figure 2. Such a device 201 comprises at least two electrodes 211, 212 and a controller 210 for measuring a current that passes through the electrodes and region of the scalp 21 of the user 20.” There is no particular “electrical conductivity device” disclosed in the specification other than the generically-named “measuring device” comprising the same components as the “electrical conductivity device”. The “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device” and “controller” are shown as “device 201”, “electrodes 211, 212”, and “controller 210” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “processor” is described generically on [Page 7, lines 7 – 8] with “This method may advantageously be implemented with a processor, part of a portable device or a computer,” and [Page 2, Lines 35 – 36] “a processor or computer which can be part of the portable device.” The “processor” is not shown in a figure.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film” is described generically on page 1, Lines 34 – 36, “Oiliness can be determined as a sebum level using translucent tapes that contact the scalp thereby absorbing sebum. The presence of sebum on the tapes changes their translucency which can be measured optically” and [Page 9, Paragraph 1] “a measurement of sebum levels can be obtained by applying a standard strip 221 of paper on the region of the scalp…by absorbing sebum present on the scalp, the strip 221 of paper will see a change in its translucency.” The “sebum-absorbing tape film” is shown as “strip 221 of paper” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is described generically in [Page 8, Lines 20 - 22] with “the invention concerns a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions for execution of the method described above.” The “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is not shown in a figure.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “image acquisition device with a sensor unit” is described generically in [Page 12, Last Paragraph] – [Page 13, Top] “Although not represented, the acquisition device
401 may typically comprise a light emitting unit” that transmits UV or polarized light, and optionally visible light, with a “corresponding sensor unit is also included in the image acquisition device 401…takes magnified images of the region of the scalp.” The “image acquisition device with a sensor unit” is shown as a rectangle “image acquisition device 401” in Fig. 4a.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device”, “controller”, “processor”, “at least one processor”, “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “an image acquisition device with a sensor unit” are reasonably construed as a generic computing and hardware devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “at least two electrodes”, “electrodes”, “electrical conductivity device”, “controller”, “processor”, “at least one processor”, “sebum-absorbing translucent tape film”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “an image acquisition device with a sensor unit”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus and method of Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements for Step 2A Prong 2 in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 10, Top] – [Page 10, 3rd Full Paragraph] that the amended claims require concrete biophysical sensing operations that use particular physical measurement device that “transform physical articles”, including electrodes that physically contact a user to measure current through a scalp, a sebum-absorbing translucent tape film that physically interacts and undergoes a “transformation of a material medium”, sensing operations that “cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper”. The sensing operations that use the electrodes to contact the user to measure current and sebum-absorbing tape film to absorb sebum on the scalp are extra-solution activity limitations that serve as data-gathering steps for the subsequently-recited abstract idea of data manipulation. The sensing operations themselves are not performed mentally with pen and paper, but they are tools being used in a routine, well-understood, and conventional way to provide data to, for example, a researcher. The claims recite a series of limitations that encompass an abstract idea of a person with ordinary skill in the art manipulating variables obtained from electronic components used in a usual way, and that variable manipulation can be accomplished with the aid of time, equations, and paper. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 10, 4th Full Paragraph] that a particular machine, including the electrodes, conductivity measuring controller, optical translucency tape, and processor demonstrate “integral use of a machine” such that these components are “integral and necessary to perform the claimed measurements.” As stated above, the electrodes with the conductivity measuring controller and the optical translucency tape are tools being used in a routine, well-understood, and conventional way to provide data to, for example, a researcher. Following the measuring limitations, the claims recite a series of limitations that encompass an abstract idea of manipulating variables obtained from electronic components used in a usual way, and that variable manipulation can be accomplished with the aid of time, equations, and paper. For example, as recited, the abstract ideas of the claims could be performed by a researcher by obtaining graphical measurement data from the electrodes and the sebum tape, drawing a table on a sheet of paper of potential groupings, and grouping data within the groups (as with placing a conductivity of 40 µS/m and sebum-tape reading of 30% into the “second scalp group”, per the ranges of Claim 1). Importantly, there is nothing recited that deems a particular improvement to the measuring devices (electrodes, conductivity measuring controller, optical translucency tape), or to the processor itself. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 11, Paragraph 1] that the claims recite significant more by effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing by the sebum-absorbing tape undergoing a measurable translucency change after absorbing sebum, representing a physical transformation expressly recited in the claims. The “transformation” is occurring as a part of the initial extra-solution activity data-gathering step of obtaining sebum measurements that is then used in the data-manipulation abstract idea limitations of the claims. The claims do not particularly recite that the ”comparing…”, “identifying…”, “outputting…” steps are responsible for creating (or altering) transformation in the sebum tape. The transformation is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function of, as Applicant describes at [Page 9, lines 17 – 20] as “...percentage of reduction in light than can pass through a standard strip of paper put into contact with the scalp of the user to soak sebum present thereon” and [Page 1, Lines 35 – 37] “The presence of sebum on the tapes changes their translucency which can be measured optically.” The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant summarily argues at [Page 11, Paragraph 2] that the claims apply any comparison or classification only in the context of concrete biophysical measurement of a user’s scalp using specific sensing hardware and physical transformation, such that the claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 are not directed to a judicial exception. Based on the 35 U.S.C 101 analysis herein and the discussion of arguments above, Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 do not qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The argument is not persuasive. The argument is not persuasive. The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Based on Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 10 - 14 is removed.
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 MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272 - 4233. 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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791