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
Response to Amendment
2. In response to applicant’s amendment received on March 19, 2026, all requested changes to the claims have been entered.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue on page 8 of the response that the analyzing step requires determining a facial expression of the user across a sequence of images during a hair care process and then determining performance parameters and/or haircare events based on those facial expressions. Determining a facial expression from each image in a sequence involves processing thousands of pixel values per image (e.g., 360 x 400-pixel RGB colour image, the '144 Publication, 1 [0092]). Processing, storing, and manipulating this volume of data across multiple images in real time during a hair care process cannot be performed mentally.
The examiner disagrees. Human can easily determine facial expression and performance parameters (eg. good or bad) visually and mentally from video of hair care process.
Applicant’s argue on page 9 that analysing performance across a sequence of images requires tracking changes in the facial expression and associated performance parameters or haircare events over time and correlating those changes with the ongoing hair care process. (Id., 11 [00128]-[0129].) This necessarily involves computational processing and comparing large amounts of data and cannot practically be performed
mentally.
The examiner disagrees. The claim dose not disclose details of analysing performance that cannot practically be performed mentally. Human can easily determine facial expression and performance parameters (good or bad) visually and mentally from video of hair care process.
Applicant’s argue on page 9 that Claim 15 recites similar "receiving," "analysing," "determining," and "feedback" steps as does claim 1. Such steps likewise involve computer-based processing of a received image to determine features, derive performance parameters and events, and generate feedback based on those determinations. (Id., 11 [0082], [0084], [0086], and [0087] .) These steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind in real time during a hair care event.
The examiner disagrees. Computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry is to be not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Like stated above, Human can easily "analysing," "determining," and "feedback" based on video, visually and mentally.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-14 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/291397. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variant.
1.(Currently amended) A computer-implemented method for generating feedback for a user performing hair care, the computer-implemented method comprising(claim 1, A computer-implemented method for generating feedback for a user performing haircare, the computer-implemented method comprising)
receiving a sequence of images of a face of the user during a hair care process; (claim 1, receiving a sequence of images of a head of the user and a haircare implement, the haircare implement being a hairstyling implement);
analysing a haircare performance by determining: a facial expression of the user in the sequence of images, and one or more performance parameters and / or one or more haircare events based on the facial expression of the user;(claim 12, determining a facial expression of the user in the sequence of images; and determining the detected performance parameter based on the facial expression of the user and the one or more implement motion parameters; wherein the implement technique is identified in accordance with the detected performance parameter);and
generating feedback for the user during the hair care case process based on: the haircare performance, the one or more performance parameters and / or the one or more haircare events; (claim 1, generating feedback for providing to the user based on the determined detangling event);
wherein the feedback comprises one or more of an instruction, a recommendation, or guidance to improve the hair care process (claim 10, herein generating the feedback comprises generating instructions for the user to operate the haircare implement in a particular way); and
the one or more haircare events include a detangling event. (claim 1, determining a detangling event if one or more of: linear velocity, angular velocity, linear acceleration, and angular acceleration of the haircare implement is less than a corresponding detangling motion threshold, the detangling event being an event in which tangles from hair of the user are being removed).
9. (Previously presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a suitable chemical treatment in accordance with a detected performance parameter or haircare event; wherein generating the feedback comprises generating instructions to the user to perform the identified treatment. (claim 9 identifying a suitable chemical treatment in accordance with a detected performance parameter or haircare event; wherein generating the feedback comprises generating instructions to the user to perform the identified chemical treatment.)
10. (Previously presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the feedback comprises generating instructions for the user to operate a haircare implement in a particular way.(claim 10, generating the feedback comprises generating instructions for the user to operate the haircare implement in a particular way. )
11. (Previously presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: identifying an implement technique in accordance with a detected performance parameter or haircare event; wherein generating the feedback comprises generating instructions to the user to perform the implement technique (claim 11, identifying an implement technique in accordance with a detected performance parameter or haircare event; wherein generating the feedback comprises generating instructions to the user to perform the implement technique).
12. (Previously presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: determining one or more implement parameters by tracking a position and orientation of the haircare implement using the sequence of images; and determining the one or more performance parameters (claim 1 determining one or more implement motion parameters by tracking a position or an orientation of the haircare implement using the sequence of images) and / or the one or more haircare events based on the facial expression of the user and the one or more implement parameters (claim 12, determining a facial expression of the user in the sequence of images; and determining the detected performance parameter based on the facial expression of the user and the one or more implement motion parameters; wherein the implement technique is identified in accordance with the detected performance parameter).
13. (Currently amended) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium program product comprising computer readable instructions which when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of claim 1. (claim 13).
14. (Previously presented) A haircare monitoring system comprising a processor configured to perform the method of claim 1. (claim 14).
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, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method of 'A computer-implemented method for generating feedback for a user performing hair care. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 14 is directed to a system, i.e., a machine, claim 13 is directed to a product, i.e., manufacture and claims 1 and 15 are directed to a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
analysing a haircare performance by determining: a facial expression of the user in the sequence of images, and one or more performance parameters and / or one or more haircare events based on the facial expression of the user (a human can analyze images to determine a facial expression and performance of haircare event ) as a mental process as an abstract idea);
generating feedback for the user during the hair care process based on: the haircare performance, and the one or more performance parameters and/or the one or more haircare events; wherein the feedback comprises one or more of an instruction, a recommendation, or guidance to improve the hair care process (a human can generate recommendation based on haircare performance) as a mental process as an abstract idea).
Claim 15 recites:
detecting, mental process as an abstract idea);
determining, mental process as an abstract idea).
classifying, mental process as an abstract idea).
identifying, mental process as an abstract idea).
determining, mental process as an abstract idea).
determining, mental process as an abstract idea).
determining, mental process as an abstract idea).
analysing, the user based on the emotion and what brush does as a mental process as an abstract idea).; and
providing, mental process as an abstract idea).;
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by one or more hardware processors (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 15 recite:
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (processor), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 15 recite:
receiving a sequence of images of a face of the user during a hair care process and receiving, by a processor, an image of a user (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
With regard to (2b) the Guidance provided the following examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception:
Improvement to another technology or technical field
Improvement to functioning of computer itself and/or applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Adding a specific limitation other that what is well understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application
Meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The Guidance further set forth limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer
Simply appending well-understood, routine and 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.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 3- 20 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional computer components, using instructions to apply the judicial exception, are merely generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
Claims 1 and 15 recite:
receiving a sequence of images of a face of the user during a hair care process and receiving, by a processor, an image of a user (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea).
Thus, since claims 1 and 15 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1 and 15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 3-14 and 16- 20 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 2/23/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights