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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 5-9 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22207058.3, filed on 11/11/2022. As such, the priority date for claims 1 and 5-9 are 11/11/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/2023 and 04/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. A signed copy of a list of references cited from each IDS is included in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 8/22/2023 are accepted.
Specification
The specification submitted on 8/22/2023 is accepted.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 1 and 5-9 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 limitation “a computer-implemented method…applying the selected chemical compound to the human hair to provide the hair target properties.” It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use a computer-implemented method in order to apply a product to human hair. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "LSL’" in the recited formula. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no explanation or support in the specification as to what LSL’ means and it is unclear whether it is a different variable or whether it is meant to be LSL as reflected in the similar variable below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the chemical compound on human hairs of a class corresponding to the assessed hair properties the chemical compound identified by the output, thereby reaching the hair target properties obtained from the user input.” It is unclear whether this is a second step of applying the chemical compound or whether it is reiterating a step recited in claim 1. The Examiner interprets this limitation as the latter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-8 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As aforementioned, the Examiner interprets the limitation to be reiteration of the step recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However,
Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is,
each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI))
Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a
rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US20060265244) as filed in the IDS on 8/23/2023 in view of Neumann (US20210049514A1) further in view of Cook et al. (US1134155B2).
Regarding claim 1, Baumann teaches:
A computer-implemented method (method can operate on a computer-based network system as recited in [0011]) for selecting a chemical compound applicable on a class of human hairs, the class of human hairs being constrained by hair properties (disclosed invention comprises using hair type and skin type scores to suggest certain skin/hair products in “Abstract”), the method comprising:
- obtaining a database storing data relative to chemical compounds applicable on the class of human hairs, for each compound the data (see [0013] where information about the product or treatments are compiled in an electronic database) comprising:
-- an identifier (an identifier is provided in the pipeline where a computer/network can use a product identifier for comparison purposes; see [0025] and claim 50),
-- an ingredient (product identifier operates on hair care products or ingredients as recited in [0025]), and
-- a performance score of the chemical compound when applied on human hairs (scores are integrated into predicting an optimum product or treatment or ingredient disclosed in [0007]; compatibility information (e.g. performance score) is also disclosed in claim 50), the performance score comprising a manageability score and a goal score (according to applicant’s specification on page 3-4, the manageability score is computed from the hair properties and target properties; therefore, manageability and goal scores are analogous to the pipeline seen in Fig. 4, where the manageability score is equivalent to the score or degree for each of the four user-inputted parameters (e.g. curly, straight, dry, injured, fine, etc. in [0009]) and the goal score is computed from these four parameters as disclosed in [0025] where there is an “avoid”, “recommend”, and “neutral” indicator which under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be a score);
- obtaining from user input, assessed hair properties and hair target properties (online computer-based system to input a skin type or hair type recited in [0024] for assessed hair properties; see [0017] where user can store their preferences on particular products or treatments for user target properties);
- determining at least one identifier of a chemical compound stored in the database corresponding to a chemical compound satisfying the computed goal score and the computed manageability goal score (after four factors have adequate input, a recommendation is made to use or not use a product in the output; see Fig. 4 and [0020]).
outputting the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound to be applied on the human hairs (explicitly stated in [0017] where an output is created based on products and information about the products stored In the identifier);
selecting the chemical compound of the at least one identifier (identifiers are used within the product recommendation pipeline; see [0017]);
the assessed hair properties and/or hair target properties comprise one or more of a hair type criterion including straight hair, wavy hair, curly hair or coily hair,a hair length criterion of short, medium or long, a hair condition criterion including untreated, colored, permed or bleached hair, a hair feel criterion including healthy or damaged hair, hair tool use criterion, a hair goal criterion including color protection, repair, shine, smooth, a scalp condition criterion including oily, dandruff, dry, a scalp goal criterion including sebum control, anti-dandruff and moisturize, a hair texture criterion, a hair diameter criterion including fine, medium and coarse, degree of damage criterion and/or an ethnicity criterion including Latino, Caucasian, African American and/or Asian (see [0009] where particular set of parameters are used for hair typing (e.g. dry, injured, fine, curly, etc.) and [0010] where other additional factors or parameters may be selected). Of note, during patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. Therefore, the limitation of "A or B" is interpreted to encompass embodiments comprising A, B, or either alternative, and the prior art need only disclose one of the recited alternatives to satisfy the limitation.
Although Baumann does not explicitly teach applying the selected chemical compound to the human hair to provide the hair target properties, his entire disclosure is directed towards recommending a “hair care product” to be used by a user (see “Abstract”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the recommended hair product to be used by a user as Baumann recites that the invention may be used by aestheticians, hair stylists, and other professionals (see [0002]). This application could be accomplished with reasonable expectation of success as cosmetic companies already frequently make recommendations their users to use (see [0003] with discussion on market on skin and hair care products).
Although Baumann does teach that information concerning the products or ingredients or combinations of ingredients can be used to refine the score or degree in any or all or any combination of factors (as recited in [0006] and [0020]), he does not explicitly teach computing at least one goal score and a manageability goal score from the assessed hair properties and hair target properties, the computed goal score and the computed manageability goal score thereby forming a signature. Cook teaches the computation of a recommendation score based on the product score and consumer score (see Col. 2 Lines 23-28) and the recommendation score is tied to a particular product with specialized values (see Fig. 11c; see also Col. 2 Lines 28-34; where the specific calculation is linked to a particular product and ranked). The Examiner notes that per the Applicant’s specification (see page 1; line 34) the performance score is comprised of a manageability score and a goal score, which in this case is analogous to Cook’s disclosed recommendation score comprising a product score and consumer score. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cook’s user recommendation system with Baumann’s existing pipeline in order to address consumer hair concerns and provide an accurate assessment of scalp and hair condition as recited by Cook (see Col. 1 Lines 13-32). This incorporation would have been accomplished with reasonable expectation of success as they both operate in the same field of endeavor.
In addition, Baumann and Cook do not teach the limitations reciting satisfying comprising minimizing a distance function between the computed goal score and a corresponding goal score and maximizing a fit-to-manageability function between the computed manageability goal score and the corresponding manageability score; the selected chemical compound applicable to human hairs comprise one or more of a hair oil, a scalp tonic and/or serum; and wherein the distance function for the hair oil, scalp tonic and/or serum is determined according to a function taking the computed goal score and the corresponding goal score as input and outputting a decreasing value as the distance between the computed goal score and the corresponding goal score decreases.
Neumann discloses a method of using artificial intelligence to analyze user activity data comprising receiving user datum and generating a diagnostic output/data about the condition of the user and selecting a compatible element and presenting the compatible element to the use (see “Abstract” and claim 11), including a compatible element database (e.g. health and personal care table) with possible shampoo conditioners (explicitly disclosed as an example using shampoo in [0039], [0113]=[0114]). In addition, Neuman teaches that both the minimization function between two scores (an algorithm may use elements of physiological data as inputs, compatible labels as outputs, and a scoring function representing a desired form of relationship to be detected between elements of physiological data and compatible labels; scoring function may, for instance, seek to maximize the probability that a given element of physiological data and/or combination of elements of physiological data is associated with a given compatible label; see [0115]) and the maximization function between two scores (determining a mathematical relationship between physiological data and compatible label. Such models may include without limitation models developed using linear regression models. Linear regression models may include ordinary least squares regression, which aims to minimize the square of the difference between predicted outcomes and actual outcomes according to an appropriate norm for measuring such a difference (e.g. a vector space distance norm); coefficients of the resulting linear equation may be modified to improve minimization… Linear regression models may be generalized in an embodiment to polynomial regression models, whereby a polynomial equation (e.g. a quadratic, cubic or higher-order equation) providing a best predicted output/actual output fit is sought; see [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Neumann’s user algorithm into Baumann as modified’s existing pipeline in order to ensure the accurate selection of compatible elements as a function of analysis of user data to increase user satisfaction as recited by Neumann (see [0003]). The incorporation would have been accomplished with reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to the same problem of analyzing user trends and activity.
Regarding claim 6, Neuman teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound comprises averaging the computed goal score and the computed manageability score, the at least one identifier of the chemical compound being ranked according to a fit-to-goal distance to the average (explicitly includes a feature wherein ways in which scores may be generated using a plurality of entries, including averaging, weighted averaging, normalization, and the like. Significance scores may be ranked: that is, all categories of physiological data, relationships of such categories to compatible label, and/or categories of compatible label may be ranked according significance scores, for instance by ranking categories of physiological data, relationships of such categories to compatible label, and/or categories of compatible label higher according to higher significance scores and lower according to lower significance scores [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Bauman teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein outputting the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound further comprises displaying the at least one identifier of the chemical compound on a display engine (explicitly taught as online or computer-based system can then display or communicate one or more products recommended for that skin or hair type, or one or more products having an ingredient that is recommended for the particular skin or hair type [0024]-[0025])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US20060265244) as filed in the IDS on 8/23/2023 and Neumann (US20210049514A1) in view of Cook et al. (US1134155B2) further in view of Gray (Hair care and hair care products. Clinics in Dermatology, 19, 227-236).
Regarding claim 9,
Baumann as modified does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising applying the chemical compound on human hairs of a class corresponding to the assessed hair properties the chemical compound identified by the output, thereby reaching the hair target properties obtained from the user input. Gray teaches application of specific products such as petrolatum pomade to different types of hair for a desired result (see “Relaxer function and chemistry” for compatible products with desired effects on page 233). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gray’s product application method to Baumann as modified’s selection pipeline in order to address increasing consumer demands to have a range of hair care products that meet specific cosmetic needs (see paragraph 5 on page 227).
Claims 5 and 7 are free from prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Although Baumann as modified does discuss various factors used to determine product selection, she is silent as to the particular mathematical computation, namely, the method of claim 1 wherein the fit-to- manageability function is function of the type: Fit (Manageability) = {((Manageability Product – LSL) /(Manageability Score – LSL’)) LP; ((USL - Manageability Product) /(USL - Manageability Score)) LP} and Manageability Product ≤ Manageability Score; Manageability Product > Manageability Score wherein: Manageability is a vector comprising Manageability Product variable and a Manageability Score variable, where Manageability Product is a variable representing a value of a manageability score by the chemical compound and a Manageability Score is a variable representing a value of a manageability goal score computed from the assessed hair properties and hair target properties; and LSL is a first variable and USL is a second variable; LP is a lower exponent variable depending on user input and UP is an upper exponent variable depending on user input. As such, claim 5 is free from prior art.
Regarding claim 7,
Although Baumann as modified does discuss various factors used to determine product selection, she is silent as to the method of claim 6, wherein the fit-to-goal distance comprises a function of the type: Fit to goal = {Lweight i x Goal i where Goal i = 0, Goal Value Product ≤ LSL; (Goal ValueProduct/GoalThreshold i), LSL < Goal ValueProduct < GoalThreshold; 1, Goal ValueProduct ≥ Goal Threshold i}, wherein: Goal1 is a value representing a goal score; Goal ValueProduct is a variable representing a value of the performance score; GoalThreshold is a variable representing a value of a goal priority, varying between 0 to 1; and Weighti is a predetermined weight. Therefore, claim 7 is free from prior art.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 5-9 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim(s) in United States Patent No. 12527389B2 in view of Baumann (US20060265244). At the time applicant made the design, it would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to modify the selection pipeline to include more parameters in the data set as demonstrated by Baumann.
Claim 1 of the instant application recites:
“A computer-implemented method selecting a chemical compound applicable on a class of human hairs, the class of human hairs being constrained by hair properties; the method comprising:
obtaining a database storing data relative to chemical compounds applicable on the class of human hairs, for each compound the data comprising:
an identifier, an ingredient, and a performance score of the chemical compound when applied on human hairs, the performance score comprising a manageability score and a goal score;
obtaining from user input, assessed hair properties and hair target properties; computing at least one goal score and a manageability goal score from the assessed hair properties and hair target properties, the computed goal score and the computed manageability goal score thereby forming a signature;
determining at least one identifier of a chemical compound stored in the database corresponding to a chemical compound satisfying the computed goal score and the computed manageability goal score,
the satisfying comprising minimizing a distance function between the computed goal score and a corresponding goal score and maximizing a fit-to-manageability function between the computed manageability goal score and the corresponding manageability score;
outputting the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound to be applied on the human hairs;
applying the selected chemical compound to the human hair to provide the hair target properties;
the assessed hair properties and/or hair target properties comprise one or more of a hair type criterion including straight hair, wavy hair, curly hair or coily hair, a hair length criterion of short, medium or long, a hair condition criterion including untreated, colored, permed or bleached hair, a hair feel criterion including healthy or damaged hair, hair tool use criterion, a hair goal criterion including color protection, repair, shine, smooth, a scalp condition criterion including oily, dandruff, dry, a scalp goal criterion including sebum control, anti-dandruff and moisturize, a hair texture criterion, a hair diameter criterion including fine, medium and coarse, degree of damage criterion and/or an ethnicity criterion including Latino, Caucasian, African American and/or Asian; and
the selected chemical compound applicable to human hairs comprise one or more of a hair oil, a scalp tonic and/or serum; and, wherein the distance function for the hair oil, scalp tonic and/or serum is determined according to a function taking the computed goal score and the corresponding goal score as input and outputting a decreasing value as the distance between the computed goal score and the corresponding goal score decreases.”
Claims 1, 7, and 9 of the reference patent recite:
“1. A computer-implemented method for selecting a chemical compound applicable on a class of human hairs, the class of human hairs being constrained by hair properties, the method comprising:
obtaining (S10) a database storing data relative to chemical compounds applicable on the class of human hairs, for each compound the data comprising:
an identifier,
an ingredient, and
a performance score of the chemical compound when applied on human hairs, the performance score comprising a manageability score and a goal score;
obtaining (S20), from user input, assessed hair properties and hair target properties;
computing (S30) at least one goal score and a manageability goal score from the assessed hair properties and hair target properties, the computed goal score and the computed manageability goal score thereby forming a signature;
determining (S40) at least one identifier of a chemical compound stored in the database corresponding to a chemical compound satisfying the computed goal score and the computed manageability goal score, the satisfying comprising minimizing a distance function between the computed goal score and a corresponding goal score and maximizing a fit-to-manageability function between the computed manageability goal score and the corresponding manageability score;
outputting (S50) the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound to be applied on the human hairs;
selecting the chemical compound of the at least one identifier;
applying the selected chemical compound to the human hair to provide the hair target properties;
wherein the assessed hair properties and/or hair target properties comprise one or more of a hair type criterion including straight hair, wavy hair, curly hair or coily hair, a hair length criterion of short, medium or long, a hair condition criterion including untreated, colored, permed or bleached hair, a hair feel criterion associated with virgin hair or with chemically or heat treated hair, hair tool use criterion, a hair goal criterion including color protection, repair, shine, smooth, a scalp condition criterion including oily, dandruff, dry, a scalp goal criterion including sebum control, anti-dandruff and moisturize, a hair texture criterion, a hair diameter criterion including fine, medium and coarse, degree of damage criterion and/or a hair diameter of fine hair of 50 to 70 mm diameter, medium hair of 70 to 90 mm diameter and coarse hair of 90 to 120 mm diameter.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the chemical compound on human hairs of a class corresponding to the assessed hair properties the chemical compound identified by the output, thereby reaching the hair target properties obtained from the user input.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the chemical compounds applicable on human hairs comprise one or more of a shampoo, a hair conditioner, a hair oil, a scalp tonic and/or serum.”
Therefore, both the instant claims and reference claims have the same effect and function. Both maintain are directed to a computer-implemented method of selecting a chemical compound applicable on a class of human hairs. They differ slightly in scope as the instant claims recite an ethnicity criterion including Latino, Caucasian, African American and/or Asian, and the reference claims recite a hair diameter of fine hair of 50 to 70 mm diameter, medium hair of 70 to 90 mm diameter and coarse hair of 90 to 120 mm diameter. However, these additional parameters would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art to include either an ethnicity criterion or a size criterion as evidenced by Baumann (see [0009] where particular set of parameters are used for hair typing (e.g. dry, injured, fine, curly, etc.) and [0010] where additional factors or parameters may be added).
Claim 5 of the instant application recites:
“The method of claim 1 wherein the fit-to- manageability function is function of the type:
Fit (Manageability) = {((Manageability Product – LSL) /(Manageability Score – LSL’)) LP; ((USL - Manageability Product) /(USL - Manageability Score)) LP}
And Manageability Product ≤ Manageability Score
Manageability Product > Manageability Score wherein:
- Manageability is a vector comprising Manageability Product variable and a Manageability Score variable, where Manageability Product is a variable representing a value of a manageability score by the chemical compound and a Manageability Score is a variable representing a value of a manageability goal score computed from the assessed hair properties and hair target properties; and
- LSL is a first variable and USL is a second variable;
- LP is a lower exponent variable depending on user input and UP is an upper exponent variable depending on user input.”
Claim 3 of the reference patent recites:
“The method of claim 1 wherein the fit-to- manageability function is function of the type:
Fit (Manageability) = {((Manageability Product – LSL) /(Manageability Score – LSL’)) LP; ((USL - Manageability Product) /(USL - Manageability Score)) LP}
And Manageability Product ≤ Manageability Score
Manageability Product > Manageability Score wherein:
- Manageability is a vector comprising Manageability Product variable and a Manageability Score variable, where Manageability Product is a variable representing a value of a manageability score by the chemical compound and a Manageability Score is a variable representing a value of a manageability goal score computed from the assessed hair properties and hair target properties; and
- LSL is a first variable and USL is a second variable;
- LP is a lower exponent variable depending on user input and UP is an upper exponent variable depending on user input.”
Claim 5 of the instant application and Claim 3 of the reference patent are identical and directed towards a fit-to-manageability function.
Claim 6 of the instant application recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound comprises averaging the computed goal score and the computed manageability score, the at least one identifier of the chemical compound being ranked according to a fit-to-goal distance to the average.”
Claim 4 of the reference patent recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein outputting (S50) the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound comprises averaging the computed goal score and the computed manageability score, the at least one identifier of the chemical compound being ranked according to a fit-to-goal distance to the average.”
Claim 6 of the instant application and Claim 4 of the reference patent are identical and directed an outputting step according to the recited function.
Claim 7 of the instant application recites:
“The method of claim 6, wherein the fit-to-goal distance comprises a function of the type:
Fit to goal = {Lweight i x Goal i where Goal i = {0, Goal Value Product ≤ LSL; (Goal ValueProduct/GoalThreshold i), LSL < Goal ValueProduct < GoalThreshold; 1, Goal ValueProduct ≥ Goal Threshold i}
Wherein:
-Goal1 is a value representing a goal score;
- Goal ValueProduct is a variable representing a value of the performance score
- GoalThreshold is a variable representing a value of a goal priority, varying between 0 to 1; and
- Weighti is a predetermined weight. “
Claim 5 of the reference patent recites:
““The method of claim 6, wherein the fit-to-goal distance comprises a function of the type:
Fit to goal = {Lweight i x Goal i where Goal i ={ 0, Goal Value Product ≤ LSL; (Goal ValueProduct/GoalThreshold i), LSL < Goal ValueProduct < GoalThreshold; 1, Goal ValueProduct ≥ Goal Threshold i}
Wherein:
-Goal1 is a value representing a goal score;
- Goal ValueProduct is a variable representing a value of the performance score
- GoalThreshold is a variable representing a value of a goal priority, varying between 0 to 1; and
- Weighti is a predetermined weight. “
Claim 7 of the instant application and Claim 5 of the reference patent are identical and directed towards a fit-to-goal distance function.
Claim 8 of the instant application recites:
“The method of claim 1 wherein outputting the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound further comprises displaying the at least one identifier of the chemical compound on a display engine.”
Claim 4 of the reference patent recites:
“The method of claim 1 wherein outputting (S50) the determined at least one identifier of the chemical compound further comprises displaying the at least one identifier of the chemical compound on a display engine.
Claim 7 of the instant application and Claim 5 of the reference patent are identical and directed towards an output on a display engine.
Claim 9 of the instant application recites:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the chemical compound on human hairs of a class corresponding to the assessed hair properties the chemical compound identified by the output, thereby reaching the hair target properties obtained from the user input.”
Claim 7 of the reference patent recites:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the chemical compound on human hairs of a class corresponding to the assessed hair properties the chemical compound identified by the output, thereby reaching the hair target properties obtained from the user input.”
Claim 9 of the instant application and Claim 7 of the reference patent are identical and directed towards chemical compound application. As such, claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Olivia M. Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/P.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights