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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 12/18/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been obviated by amendments to the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the independent claims, as amended, contain a process that is not a mental process, as it cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The Applicant further argues that the human mind is not equipped to determine a product or treatment recommendation by inputting the input of the user information and the user-selected image of the type of curl pattern into a neural network that is trained to output the product or treatment recommendations based on a combination of image information and textual information, or to train the neural network at least in part on image pairs of originally diagnosed curl patterns and resulting curl patterns labeled with products or treatments that achieved the resulting curl patterns. The Applicant cites the August 5, 2025 Memo directed to “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” and quotes “[A] claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).”). The Applicant further argues that even if such a process is considered to involve an abstract idea, the recited details relating to training of the neural network clearly integrate any abstract idea into a practical application.
This is not found persuasive. It is noted that the involvement of the neural network amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on a computer. A human would be able to mentally observe user information and user-selected images of the type of curl pattern in order to make a judgement regarding a product or treatment recommendation based on the user’s information and user-selected images. The claim involves using a trained neural network, which does not to preclude the claim from be directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner notes that the reasoning for rejecting the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 follows similar reasoning for the analysis of claim 2 of Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf). Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are maintained. Please see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections hereinbelow.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been obviated by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and because Applicant’s arguments have been found persuasive. As Applicant argues, Robinson does not reasonably teach or suggest processing circuitry of a server device that determines a product or treatment recommendation by inputting the input of the user information and the user-selected image of the type of curl pattern into a neural network that is trained to output the product or treatment recommendations based on a combination of image information and textual information. No other prior art could be found to reasonably teach or suggest claim 1, and so allowable subject matter is indicated hereinbelow. However, it is noted that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are still outstanding and must be overcome. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-2 and 6-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting a product/treatment recommendation based on the analysis of the collected information) without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claims 1, 9, and 14 are directed to a system comprising physical computer/processor components and a computer-implemented method, and thus meets the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 14, the following steps recite an abstract idea:
“output[ting] a product or treatment recommendation based at least partially on the determined curl pattern of the user and the desired result of the user” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could make product or treatment recommendations/evaluations based on received information in the mind (i.e., by a mental process).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 14, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
“at least one server device”, “a mobile user device”, “processing circuitry”, “an application”, and “a neural network” are all recited with a high level of generality. The at least one server device, mobile user device, processing circuitry, and application are all associated components of a generic computer system (Figs. 1-2; Page 6, line 20 – Page 8, line 6). It is also noted that “neural network” is recited at a high level of generality. The Applicant explains that the system implements one or more convolutional neural networks (CNNs), or other machine learning techniques such as decision tree learning, association rule learning, artificial neural networks, deep learning, inductive logic programming, support vector machines, clustering, Bayesian networks, reinforcement learning, representation learning, similarity and metric learning, sparse dictionary learning, genetic algorithms, rule-based machine learning and learning classifiers (Page 19, line 21 – Page 20, line 13). The involvement of the “at least one server”, “a mobile user device”, “processing circuitry”, “an application”, and neural network is insignificant extra-solution activity in that they amount to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)]. The involvement of “receiv[ing] an input of user information regarding a plurality of characteristics of at least the hair of a user including at least a curl pattern of the user” and “receiv[ing] an input of a desired result of treatment of the hair of the user … wherein the input of the desired result of treatment comprises a user-selected image of a type of curl pattern” are both considered insignificant extra-solution activity in that they are merely involved with gathering and collecting data [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
The limitation “wherein the processing circuitry of the at least one server device determines the product or treatment recommendation by inputting the input of the user information and the user-selected image of the type of curl pattern into a neural network that is trained to output the product or treatment recommendations based on a combination of image information and textual information, and wherein the neural network is trained at least in part on image pairs of originally diagnosed curl patterns and resulting curl patterns labeled with products or treatments that achieved the resulting curl patterns” is interpreted as functions of a general purpose computer recited at a high level of generality. This limitation amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Furthermore, the “at least one server device”, “a mobile user device”, “processing circuitry”, and “an application”, along with their associated functions and components, do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea when considered in combination because these elements are recited at a high level of generality and their related functions and components are merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B
The additional elements of claim 1, when considered either individually or in an ordered combination, are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “at least one server device”, “a mobile user device”, “processing circuitry”, “an application”, and “a neural network”, along with their associated functions and components are recited with a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Also, simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept [MPEP 2106.05(d)]. The Applicant’s specification explains that the application may utilize operating systems known to those skilled in the art and that the hardware elements used to achieve the device may be realized by circuitry elements known to those skilled in the art (Page 14, line 8 – Page 15, line 19). Robinson, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0349979) discusses (Fig. 1) the use of a web app 130 with a mobile phone computing device 102 for the purpose of providing a customized product recommendation (Title, Par. [0032-0033]). In this case, well-known elements of a general computer system and well-known elements for data collection/analysis are used to implement the abstract idea for providing a product or treatment recommendation. It is noted that the involvement of “receiv[ing] an input of user information regarding a plurality of characteristics of at least the hair of a user including at least a curl pattern of the user” and “receiv[ing] an input of a desired result of treatment of the hair of the user … wherein the input of the desired result of treatment comprises a user-selected image of a type of curl pattern” amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i.)). It is also noted that neural networks are considered to be a well-known supervised/unsupervised machine learning technique and can be used to collect and analyze data in order to identify certain patterns, as evidenced in Par. [0035] of Hayes, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2012/0116187). Also, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of hair product or treatment recommendation is not indicative of an inventive concept [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
Dependent claims
Regarding dependent claims 2, 10, and 15, the limitations only further define insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data.
Regarding dependent claims 6-8, 111-13, and 16-18, the limitations only further define the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-2 and 6-18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 6-18 contain potentially allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (namely Robinson, et al.) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of independent claims 1, 9, and 14 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the input of the desired result of treatment comprises a user-selected image of a type of curl pattern,
wherein the processing circuitry of the at least one server device determines the product or treatment recommendation by inputting the input of the user information and the user-selected image of the type of curl pattern into a neural network that is trained to output the product or treatment recommendations based on a combination of image information and textual information, and
wherein the neural network is trained at least in part on image pairs of originally diagnosed curl patterns and resulting curl patterns labeled with products or treatments that achieved the resulting curl patterns. No other prior art reference could be found that teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claims 1, 9, and 14. Due to their dependency on independent claims 1, 9, and 14, instant claims 2, 6-8, 10-13, and 15-18 are also considered to contain potentially allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). In particular, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections detailed hereinabove must be overcome.
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 MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796