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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-17 are directed to a skin condition estimation method (process); claim 18 is directed to a skin condition estimation device (machine); claim 19 is directed to a skin condition estimation system (machine).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 18-19, the recited steps are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill). The limitation(s) of estimate/estimating “a future skin condition on an estimation date, the estimation date being after a first acquisition date, the first acquisition date being a date on which the first information is acquired, and the future skin condition being estimated based on the first information” is/are a process that, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard interpretation. For example, these limitations are nothing more than reading numbers on a chart and predicting how a skin will look at some point in the future relative to when the numbers were gathered.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 also recites the method “executed by a computer, the skin condition estimation method comprising: acquiring first information related to hormone balance”; claim 18 also recites “a sensor configured to acquire information related to hormone balance; and at least one processor configured to estimate future skin information”; claim 19 also recites “a measurement device; and a processing device configured to communicate with the measurement device, wherein the measurement device comprises: a sensor configured to acquire information related to hormone balance; and a transmitter configured to transmit the information, and wherein the processing device comprises: a receiver configured to receive the information”. The acquiring, transmitting and receiving amount to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering. The computer, sensor, processor, measurement device, processing device, transmitter and receiver are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of acquiring, transmitting and receiving amount to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. The additional elements recited above are well known in the field of data collection and communication. Moreover, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to 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 to the industry, is discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement the abstract idea of estimating a future skin condition based on present data collection.
Regarding dependent claims 2-17, the limitations of claim 1 further defines the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al (U.S. 9,747,685). Miyamoto discloses (Figures 1-3) a method executed by a computer comprising (col. 9, lines 13-41): acquiring first information related to hormone balance; and estimating a future skin condition on an estimation date, the estimation date being after a first acquisition date, the first acquisition date being a date on which the first information is acquired, and the future skin condition being estimated based on the first information (col. 13, lines 15-40).
Regarding claim 2, Miyamoto discloses (col. 9, lines 13-41) the first information comprises at least blood or saliva.
Regarding claim 4, Miyamoto discloses (col. 6, lines 1-7) acquiring a plurality of pieces of the first information on a plurality of different days, and wherein the future skin condition is estimated based on the plurality of pieces of the first information acquired on the plurality of different days.
Regarding claim 14, Miyamoto discloses (col. 6, lines 1-7) the estimation date is a current day, and wherein the future skin condition is estimated based on the first information acquired in the past.
Regarding claim 15, Miyamoto discloses (col. 6, lines 1-7) acquiring fourth information related to a current hormone balance related to a current blood condition, wherein estimating the current skin condition comprises estimating the current skin condition based on the first information acquired in the past and the fourth information acquired at present.
Regarding claim 16, Miyamoto discloses (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 15) acquiring actual measurement information of a skin condition; and creating a regression model in which the first information is input and the future skin condition is output, wherein the regression model is trained with the first information and information of the skin condition.
Regarding claim 17, Miyamoto discloses (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 15) estimating the future skin condition comprises inputting the first information to the regression model.
Regarding claim 18, Miyamoto discloses (Figures 1-3) a sensor configured to acquire information related to hormone balance (col. 9, lines 13-41); and at least one processor configured to estimate future skin information on an estimation date, the estimation date being after a date on which the information is acquired, and the future skin information being estimated based on the acquired information (col. 13, lines 15-40).
Regarding claim 19, Miyamoto discloses (Figures 1-3) a measurement device; and a processing device configured to communicate with the measurement device, wherein the measurement device comprises (col. 9, lines 13-41): a sensor configured to acquire information related to hormone balance; and a transmitter configured to transmit the information, and wherein the processing device comprises: a receiver configured to receive the information; and at least one processor configured to estimate a future skin condition on an estimation date, the estimation date being after a date on which the information is acquired, and the future skin condition being estimated based on the information (col. 13, lines 15-40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al (U.S. 9,747,685). Miyamoto discloses the claimed invention except for the first acquisition date is at least 7 days or more and 13 days or less before the estimation date. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the claimed acquisition date range, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH L MALAMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-2106. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 1:00-9:30 Eastern.
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, James Kish can be reached at (571) 272-5554. 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.
/DEBORAH L MALAMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792