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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on 11 May 2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2026 May 11 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant did not amend the claims. The applicant, in the remarks, suggests amendments to overcome the objections and 112 rejections, but no such amendments are made.
The rejection is repeated below because the claims have not been amended.
The applicant argues on page 6-7 that the “obtaining” step (i) is not disclosed because “the cited passage discloses data are related to a facial segment of the entire face, but does not recite locations of particular features within a particular facial segment or within the dimensions of the entire face.”
The examiner disagrees. The applicant does not claim “particular features are within a particular facial segment…entire face”, as argued. The claim only claims “obtaining…an indication of a location”. As can be seen in the cited passage, data related to a facial segment or entire face, as the applicant explains the cited passage discloses, is an indication of a location of one or more features. If the applicant wishes for the argued limitations to be interpreted into the claim, the applicant should provide such language in the claims.
On page 7, the applicant argues that “generating…subject” is not disclosed by the prior art, because the prior art is “silent about generating an initial map (i.e. before the start of treatment), and that paragraph 131 of the prior art discloses treatment plans may include sub-treatment plans, which is different from an initial map of the skin. The applicant further argues that paragraph 142 is silent about an initial map of the skin including one or more features of the subject.
The examiner disagrees. Again, if the applicant wishes for a limitation to be interpreted into the claim, the applicant must provide the claim language in the claim. The claim does not recite that the initial map is before the start of treatment, as argued. Currently, as claimed, the initial map is generated based on first image data, and Amir et al teaches this limitation in any of the mappings described in page 10, paragraph 125, 131 and page 11, paragraph 14, which are initial mappings because they are later updated in further iterations (fig. 1, item 104, 106, page 10, paragraph 131).
On page 7, the applicant argues that “determining…subject” is not disclosed, and because Amir discloses analysis of data associated with the face of the patient and determining treatment to be performed instead treatment of a treatment performed (i.e. a treatment performed in the past.
The examiner disagrees. Again, if the applicant wishes for the claim to be interpreted as such, i.e. a treatment performed in the past, the applicant must explicitly provide such language in the claim. However, as currently claimed “treatment performed” could be interpreted either way. Even if interpreting the claim as a treatment performed in the past, Amir et al still teaches such a limitation, because one could interpret the previous iteration as the treatment performed in the past.
On page 7, the applicant argues “generating…subject is not disclosed because Amir does not disclose the initial map, as argued in parts (i) and (ii), and “the treatment parameter” of argued (iii).
As refuted above, Amir et al teaches the argued limitations.
On page 8, the applicant argues that Amir does not disclose “generating, based on the initial map and the treatment parameter…subject”. The applicant summarizes cited portions of Amir et al and then argues that a skin profile is not a map, and does not disclose how the profile is generated.
The examiner disagrees. If the applicant wishes “map” to be interpreted as argued, the applicant should provide the language in the claims. As disclosed in paragraph 98, the skin profile maps a facial skin state to the facial skin, and therefore is a map. Paragraph 125 also discloses that the facial skin profile is mapped to a facial segment.
On page 8, the applicant argues that “Fig. 10 is silent about generating a treatment instruction based on an update map”.
The examiner disagrees. As explained in the previous rejection, when the process of fig. 1, iterates, instructions are adjusted. And the process is repeated, thus updating the map.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recite the limitation “the location”, “the one or more features” and “the indication” when previously claiming each of the above limitations twice. Due to the identical recitation in the beginning of claim 2 as to that of claim 1, the examiner believes that the limitations at the beginning of claim 2 correspond to that of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation "the skin" in lines 3 and 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “the identified features” in lines 7 and 10, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 8 and recites the limitation "the nature" in line 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180014777 (Amir et al).
Regarding claim 1, Amir et al discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a treatment instruction (fig. 1), the method comprising: receiving first image data relating to the skin of a subject in a first run of fig. 1, item 102 (page 7, paragraph 86); obtaining, based on the first image data, an indication of a location of one or more features of the subject, i.e. the associated data that defines the facial segment of the data (page 7, paragraph 86); generating, based on the first image data, since the first image data is obtained to be used in the rest of the method of fig. 1 (page 7, paragraph 86), an initial map of the skin of the subject including the location of the identified features, i.e. the mapping of the segment to the treatment performed and the state of the skin (page 10, paragraph 125, page 10, paragraph 131, page 11, paragraph 142); receiving second image data relating to the skin of the subject during a current treatment session, i.e. a treatment session when the process of fig. 1 iterates (fig. 1, item 102, page 7, paragraph 86); determining, based on the second image data, because the data after item 102 is based on the image data of item 102 (fig. 1, item 102, page 7, paragraph 86), a treatment parameter relating to a treatment performed in respect of the skin of the subject, i.e. a parameter/ data of the skin which determines a treatment performed (fig. 1, item 102, fig. 1, item 104); generating, based on the initial map and the treatment parameter, an updated map of the skin of the subject, i.e. the mapping of the current treatment to the skin segment in the second iteration (fig. 1, item 104, 106, page 10, paragraph 131), which is based on the treatment parameter of the current iteration (fig. 1, items 104, 106 follow item 102) and the initial map, since the history of the previous treatments and skin profile are considered in order to find current treatment (page 7, paragraph 92, page 8, paragraph 98, page 12, paragraph 158); and generating, based on the updated map, a treatment instruction for delivery to a recipient device, i.e. the instruction developed in fig. 1, item 110.
Regarding claim 2, Amir et al discloses obtaining an indication of a location of one or more features of the subject comprises one or more of: determining the location of the one or more features of the subject using the first image data, i.e. contour data (page 7, paragraph 86, page 8, paragraph 96); receiving the indication via a user input (pages 7-8, paragraph 93-95) and receiving the indication from a treatment device used to treat the one or more features (page 8, paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 3, Amir et al discloses determining, based on the first image data, the nature of the one or more features, i.e. any of the information that is associated with the face related data from the image of page 7, paragraph 86, like the moisture content (page 7, paragraph 86)or any of the other data that is analyzed to determine the treatment data(page 7, paragraph 90).
Regarding claim 4, Amir et al discloses generating one or more of: a display instruction (page 7, paragraph 93) for delivery to a display unit (fig. 2, item 236 or 220), the display instruction configured to cause the display unit to display the updated map(page 8, paragraph 95, page 10, paragraph 132), and a communication instruction for delivery to a communication unit (fig. 1, item 110), the communication instruction configured to cause the communication unit (fig. 2, item 222) to communicate the treatment instruction to a recipient (fig. 2, item 206, fig. 2, item 236, page 10, paragraph 132).
Regarding claim 5, Amir et al discloses receiving, from a treatment device used to treat the skin of the subject during the current treatment session, treatment data relating to the current treatment session, i.e. the data received in fig. 1, item 102; determining the treatment parameter further based on the received treatment data (fig. 1, item 102, 104).
Regarding claim 6, Amir et al discloses storing, in a storage device (fig. 2, item 238, 224), data for the current treatment session including at least one of: the first image data, the indication of the location of the one or more features by storing , the initial map (page 1, paragraph 5, page 6, paragraph 79, page 7, paragraph 88), the second image data, the determined treatment parameter (page 6, paragraph 74, page 7, paragraph 89), the updated map (page 7, paragraph 89), and the treatment instruction; wherein generating a treatment instruction is further based on stored data relating to a past treatment session, because the generation of treatment and instructions(fig. 1, item 104-110) are based on stored data relating to previous treatments (page 7, paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 7, Amir et al discloses the recipient device, that which receives instruction for the treatment of fig. 1, item 110, comprises a treatment device used to perform treatment during the current treatment session (fig. 2, item 202); and wherein the treatment instruction comprises an instruction to the treatment device to apply or adjust an operating parameter based on the updated map by applying the operating parameter/ step based on the updated map of fig. 1, item 106 (page 11, paragraph 142-144).
Regarding claim 8, Amir et al discloses the treatment parameter comprises one or more of: a location relative to the skin of the subject at which treatment is provided during the current treatment session (page 10, paragraph 125); an indication of the nature of a treatment provided during the current treatment session (page 11, paragraph 144); an indication of an operating parameter of a treatment device used during the current treatment session (page 11, paragraph 144); a date and/or time at which the current treatment session commenced (page 8, paragraph 108); and a duration of the current treatment session.
Regarding claim 9, Amir et al discloses generating, during the current treatment session, based on the second image data, a revised treatment instruction for delivery to a recipient device, i.e. the revised treatment on another iteration of fig. 1, item 112, which is based on all the previous steps of fig. 1, including that of the second image data of step 102.
Regarding claim 10, Amir et al discloses each of the one or more features of the subject comprises a feature selected from a group comprising: a blemish, a pimple, a spot (page 5, paragraph 59), a wrinkle (page 5, paragraph 59), a region of scar tissue, a mole (page 5, paragraph 59), a skin defect (page 5, paragraph 59), a birthmark, a tattooed region, a bruise and a region of dry skin.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 11. Claim 11 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that claim 11 is a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the computer-readable medium having computer-readable code embodied therein, the computer-readable code being configured such that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor, the computer or processor is caused to perform the method of claim 1. Amir et al teaches further this feature, i.e. fig. 1, item 208, 212, instructions processed by fig. 2, item 206, 210.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 12. Claim 12 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that claim 12 is a system claim comprising an imaging unit configured to acquire image data relating to the skin of the subject and a processor configured to carry out the method of claim 1. Amir et al teaches further this feature, i.e. an image sensor (page 7, paragraph 86), and fig. 2, item 206, 210.
Regarding claim 13, Amir et al discloses a treatment device operable to perform treatment of the skin of the subject (fig. 2); wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit the treatment instruction to the treatment device (fig. 1, item 110, fig. 2, item 210, 216).
Regarding claim 14, Amir et al discloses a presentation device for presenting information to a user, i.e. a display in a user interface (fig. 2, item 236, 220); wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit the treatment instruction to the presentation device (page 8, paragraph 95, page 10, paragraph 132).
Regarding claim 15, Amir et al discloses a user interface (fig. 2, item 236, 220) configured to receive a user input comprising an annotation associated with the first image data, i.e. the treatment in the first iteration (page 1, paragraph 23); wherein the processor is configured to generate the treatment instruction further based on the user input, since the user input defines the treatment in the first iteration, which also defines treatment in later iterations (page 7, paragraph 92).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 6/15/2026
Prosecution Insights