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 .
Claims 1-3,6-7,11-12 are pending. Claims 1-3,6-7,11-12 are rejected herein.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 26 June 2025 the following occurred: claims 1,3,7,11 were amended. Claims 4,5,8,9,10 were cancelled.
Priority
This application claims priority to IN202211043705, thus this application has a priority date of 30 July 2022.
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 1-3,6,7,11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method and system for providing one or more suggestions related to a user’s skin health, which are within statutory categories for subject matter eligibility analysis purposes.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (claim 1 being representative): receiving […] a request from a user […] to provide the one or more suggestions related to the user’s skin health: extracting […] a first set of parameters, a second set of parameters, and a third set of parameters[…] a second set of parameters, and a third set of parameters of the user […] performing […] a multi-dimension correlation across the first set of parameters to generate a first input, wherein the first set of parameters comprises at least ethnicity, user’s skin type, weather, day of monthly cycle and age: performing […] the multi-dimension correlation across the second set of parameters to generate a second input, wherein the second set of parameters comprises at least one of lifestyle, occupation, skin condition, physical activity, stress, or sleep; performing […] the multi-dimension correlation across the third set of parameters, the first input, and the second input to generate the one or more suggestions to the user; wherein the user skin type is determined […] though analysis of a captured photo of user’s face; wherein the upcoming weather for a predefined time period is determined using location information, […] and wherein the day of the cycle is determined using the menstrual cycle information […] as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components.
Other than reciting one or more user devices, a server, database, transceiver, and a processing unit, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the one or more user devices, a server, database, transceiver, and a processing unit, this claim encompasses a person receiving a request in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of one or more user devices, a server, database, transceiver, and a processing unit that implements the identified abstract idea. These items are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The independent claims contain a variety of additional elements including one or more sensors, an input unit, output unit and an artificial intelligent based camera and a location sensor of the user device. These generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additional elements that generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot serve to integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l), Relevant Consideration for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Integrate A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of one or more user devices, a server, database, transceiver, and a processing unit to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
The independent claims contain a variety of additional elements including one or more sensors, an input unit, output unit and an artificial intelligent based camera and a location sensor of the user device. These generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additional elements that generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot serve to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l), Relevant Consideration for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Integrate A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent Claims and Additional Elements
Claims 2,3,6,11,12 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) the nature of the one or suggestions. Claim(s) 6 and 12 merely describe(s) delivering the suggestions.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 also includes the additional element of a variety of sensors, which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0404691 A1 (hereafter Shelton) in view of TW 201617835 A (hereafter Lawrence) in view of WO 2008/086311 A2 (hereafter Bandic).
Regarding Claim 1
Shelton teaches:
A method for providing one or more suggestions related to user’s skin health, the method being performed by a system comprising one or more server devices comprises one or more sensors, an input unit, an output unit and a transceiver, and the server comprising a database, a transceiver, and a processing unit having one or more modules, wherein the one or more user devices are communicatively coupled to the server via a communication network, the method comprising: [Shelton teaches at para. [0024] the surgical system will be in communication with a remote server that will be part of a cloud computing system. The cloud computing system teaches a system that includes a server, a transceiver, a database and a processing unit having one or more modules wherein the one or more devices are communicatively coupled to the server via a communication network. Shelton teaches at para. [0023] the environmental sensing system will include one or more devices, for example, used for measuring one or more environmental attributes, for example, used for measuring one or more environmental attributes, for example, as further described in Figure. 2. The one or more devices is interpreted to be the input unit, an output unit and a transceiver. Regardless, Shelton teaches at para. [0098] the handle will include a transceiver that is configured to transmit instrument data from the controller to other components of the system (e.g., the LAN, the cloud, the console, or the portable device). Shelton teaches at para. [0098] the controller will display messages on the local instrument display or transmit the message, via transceiver, to the console or the portable device to display the messages on the local instrument display or transmit the message, via the transceiver, to the console or transmit the message, via transceiver, to the console or the portable device to display the message on the display or portable device screen respectively.]
receiving, by the server, a request from a user via the one or more user devices to provide the one or more suggestions related to the user’s skin health; [Shelton teaches at para. [0024] the surgical system will be in communication with a remote server that will be part of a cloud computing system. Shelton teaches at para. [0024] in an example, the surgical system will be in communication with a remote server via an internet service provider’s cable/FIOS networking node. Shelton teaches at para. [00024] a patient sensing system will be in direct communication with a remote server. Shelton teaches at para. [0227] the computing device will suggest an optimal port placement, e.g., by causing to project laser points on a patient’s body to indicate an optimal (E.g., best optimal) placement position. Shelton teaches at para. [0235] in the case that a surgical device indicates a tissue is positioned incorrectly, the healthcare professional will request to open and reposition the surgical device. Collectively, Shelton teaches receiving, by the server, a request from a user via the one or more user devices to provide the one or more suggestions related to the user’s skin health. The port placement is the suggestion related to the user’s skin health. Receiving a suggestion of a port placement site is receiving a request from a user via the one or more devices to provide the one or more suggestions related to the user’s skin health.]
extracting by the server, first set of parameters, a second set of parameters, and a third set of parameters of the user through the one or more user devices; [Shelton teaches at para. [0042] the HCP sensing system will include sensing systems to monitor and detect a set of physical states and/or set of physiological states of a healthcare personnel (HCP). Shelton teaches at para. [0042] one or more environmental sensing device will send environmental information to the surgical hub. Shelton teaches at para. [0042] for example, the environmental sensing devices include a camera for detecting hand/body position of an HCP. Shelton teaches at para. [0085] other sensor(s) will be provided to measure physical parameters of the physical system in addition to the position measured by the position sensors. Shelton teaches at para. [0233] such obvious difference will be detected, e.g., based on monitored parameters like video stream data, tissue impedance data, force data, etc. The video stream data is interpreted as the first set of parameters, the tissue impedance data is interpreted as the second set of parameters. The force data is interpreted as a third set of parameters. Collectively, Shelton teaches extracting by the server, first set of parameter’s, a second set of parameters, and a third set of parameters of the user through the one or more user devices.]
performing, by the server, a multi-dimension correlation across the first set of parameters to generate a first input, [Shelton teaches at para. [0100] the situation awareness system of the surgical hub will be configured to derive the contextual information from the data received from the data sources in a variety of different ways. Shelton teaches at para. [0100] the situational awareness system will include a pattern recognition system, or machine learning system (e.g., an artificial neural network), that has been trained on training data to correlate various inputs (e.g., data from database(s), patient monitoring devices, modular devices, HCP monitoring device, and/or environment monitoring device to corresponding contextual information regarding a surgical procedure. Shelton teaches at para. [0100] in examples, the situational awareness system will include a lookup table storing pre-characterized contextual information regarding a surgical procedure in associated with one or more inputs (or ranges of inputs) corresponding to the contextual information. Collectively, Shelton teaches performing, by the server, a multi-dimension correlation across the first set of parameters to generate a first input.]
and displaying, by the server, using the output unit of the one or more user devices the one or more suggestions to the user; [Shelton teaches at para. [0098] the controller will display messages on the local instrument display or transmit the message, via transceiver, to the console or the portable device to display the messages on the local instrument display or transmit the message, via the transceiver, to the console or transmit the message, via transceiver, to the console or the portable device to display the message on the display or portable device screen respectively. Shelton teaches at para. [0227] the computing device will suggest an optimal port placement, e.g., by causing to project laser points on a patient’s body to indicate an optimal (e.g., best optimal) placement position. Collectively, this teaches, and displaying, by the server, using the output unit of the one or more user device and one or more suggestions to the user. ]
Shelton may not explicitly teach:
wherein the first set of parameters comprises at least, ethnicity, user’s skin type, weather, day of monthly cycle and age;
performing, by the server, the multi-dimension correlation across the second set of parameters to generate a second input, wherein the second set of parameters comprises at least one of lifestyle, occupation, skin condition, physical activity, stress, or sleep;
performing, by the server, the multi-dimension correlation across the third set of parameters, the first input, the second input to generate the one or more suggestions, wherein the third set of parameter’s comprises at least one of medical condition, sensitivity, goals or preferences;
[…]
wherein the user skin type is determined using an artificial intelligent-based camera on the user device through analysis of a captured photo of user’s face;
wherein the upcoming weather for a predefined time period is determined using location information,
wherein the location information is determined using a location sensor of the user device;
and wherein the day of the cycle is determined using the menstrual cycle information, wherein the menstrual cycle information is being determined from the user device.
Lawrence teaches:
[…]
wherein the upcoming weather for a predefined time period is determined using location information, [Lawrence teaches at the Abstract the present invention discloses a user interface for providing reduced size weather information. Lawrence teaches at the Abstract at an electronic device having one of the touch sensitive displays, an indication of the temperature of one of the locations and the location will be displayed. Lawrence teaches at the Abstract in some examples, the device will display a visual cue at a location to indicate the time of day when a meteorological condition is provided. Lawrence teaches at the Abstract in some examples, a user will provide input via one of the touch sensitive displays and/or via one of the rotatable input mechanisms to display additional weather information, such as a another location, another temperature, weather information for another time.]
wherein the location information is determined using a location sensor of the user device; [Lawrence teaches at pg. 37 the GPS module 135 determines the location of the device and provides this information for use by various applications (e.g. to the phone for use in location based dialing, to the camera for picture/video post-data; and to provide location-based service application such as the meteorological interface tool set, the local Yellow Pages Interface Tool Set, and the Map/Navigation Interface Toolset.]
[…]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous surgical system instrument actuation of Shelton, IV to the weather user interface of Lawrence with the motivation of obtaining meteorological conditions to inform a skin health regimen.
Shelton/Lawrence may not explicitly teach:
[…]
wherein the first set of parameters comprises at least, ethnicity, user’s skin type, weather, day of monthly cycle and age;
performing, by the server, the multi-dimension correlation across the second set of parameters to generate a second input, wherein the second set of parameters comprises at least one of lifestyle, occupation, skin condition, physical activity, stress, or sleep;
performing, by the server, the multi-dimension correlation across the third set of parameters, the first input, the second input to generate the one or more suggestions, wherein the third set of parameter’s comprises at least one of medical condition, sensitivity, goals or preferences;
[…]
wherein the user skin type is determined using an artificial intelligent-based camera on the user device through analysis of a captured photo of user’s face;
[…]
and wherein the day of the cycle is determined using the menstrual cycle information, wherein the menstrual cycle information is being determined from the user device.
Bandic teaches:
wherein the first set of parameters comprises at least, ethnicity, user’s skin type, weather, day of monthly cycle and age; [Bandic teaches at para. [0081] that the algorithm will determine peers of a user who may be most like them in terms of skin state or other criteria such as gender, age ethnicity, behaviors such as smoking, working outdoors, and the like, diet, regimen, and any other identifying factors. Bandic teaches at para. [0093] broad genetic parameters, such as ethnicity, skin color, location factors, environmental factors (Such as pollen count, weather, etc.)., and lifestyle factors will be collected in addition to image and skin health data to determine the users’ skin state. The skin color is interpreted as the user’s skin type. Bandic teaches at para. [0080] other factors that will be used to determine the regimen will be the current UV Index, time of day, location, kind of sun protection product the user prefers, and the like. Bandic teaches at para. [0093] a user will enter anecdotal information, such as medication they may be taking, recent overexposure to sun, stage in a menstrual cycle, and the like. The stage in the menstrual cycle and time of day information are collectively define the day of monthly cycle.]
performing, by the server, the multi-dimension correlation across the second set of parameters to generate a second input, wherein the second set of parameters comprises at least one of lifestyle, occupation, skin condition, physical activity, stress, or sleep; [Bandic teaches at para. [0071] desired improvements will be correlated to ingredients and most effective products/regimens 118 for the users’ skin. Bandic teaches at para. [0099] the user interface will collect lifestyle data and also provide lifestyle (such as sleep, rest, exercise, and the like) and health (such as vitamins, food, products usage, and the like) recommendations based on the users particular skin state and characteristics. The lifestyle recommendations are the second set of parameters comprises at least lifestyle. The lifestyle recommendations are also interpreted as generating a second input.]
performing, by the server, the multi-dimension correlation across the third set of parameters, the first input, the second input to generate the one or more suggestions, wherein the third set of parameter’s comprises at least one of medical condition, sensitivity, goals or preferences; [Bandic teaches at para. [0071] desired improvements will be correlated to ingredients and most effective products/regimens 118 for the users’ skin. Bandic teaches at para. [00122] progress will be sorted by the concerns/skin care goals that the user will have indicated at the beginning of the test. This is teaching the first input and the third set of parameters. Bandic teaches at para. [00123] at an interval, such as at the end of a suggested regimen 118, a report will include information on how the user’s skin state changed over time, if the user’s skin is healthier than when they started the regimen, if the product or regimen met their initial goals, feedback on regimen product effectiveness, and the like. Bandic teaches at para. [00123] given the current skin state 158, a new product or regiment 118 will be recommended.]
[…]
wherein the user skin type is determined using an artificial intelligent-based camera on the user device through analysis of a captured photo of user’s face; [Bandic teaches at para. [0048] a sensor for detecting reflected light from the skin will be embodied in optics resident in a CCD camera, CMOS-based imaging system, digital camera, webcam, camera embedded in a communications device such as a cell phone or iPhone, PDA (Personal Digital Assistant), a watch or other wearable device for continuous monitoring of the skin as in a sports-type indication, a third part device 109, a scanner, and the like. Bandic teaches at para. [0048] the sensor will be adapted to automatically filter out particular wavelengths. Bandic teaches at para. [0048] the sensor will be adapted to automatically filter out particular wavelengths. Bandic teaches at para. [0048] the sensor will be adapted to automatically filter out particular wavelengths. Bandic teaches at para. [0048] the sensor will be adapted to automatically filter out particular wavelengths. Bandic teaches the sensor will be adapted to image an size area, such as a small portion of the skin, the full face, a complete cutaneous examination, and the like. Bandic teaches at para. [0076] an algorithm will be useful for analysis of skin characteristic, obtaining the biophysical properties of the skin, and determining a skin state. Bandic teaches at para. [0076] the signals will correlate with the aggregate conformation state of molecules in the skin structure. Bandic teaches at para. [0076] the signal will correlate with the aggregate conformation state of molecules in the skin. Bandic teaches at para. [0076] by comparing this signal to a standard calibration signal, aspects of the underlying skin structure will be determined.]
[…]
and wherein the day of the cycle is determined using the menstrual cycle information, wherein the menstrual cycle information is being determined from the user device. [Bandic teaches at para. [0076] determining a skin state 158 will also include, in addition to the processing and analysis of images of the skin for various measures and endpoints as described herein, a visual analysis of the images, user entered information, and third party information, such as lifestyle, smoking history, exercise habits, diet, allergies, and the like. Bandic teaches at para. [0076] for example, a user will enter anecdotal information, such as the medication they will be taking, recent overexposure to sun, stage in a menstrual cycle and the like. Note that wherein the menstrual cycle information is being determined from the user device could or could not involve sensors, questions on user interfaces etc. Collectively, Bandic teaches and wherein the day of the cycle is determined using the menstrual cycle information, wherein the menstrual cycle information is being determined from the user device.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous surgical system instrument actuation of Shelton to the weather user interface of Lawrence the system, device and method for dermal imaging of Bandic with the motivation of curing the capacity shortage in dermatology, which has involved difficulty inconvenience, and prohibitively high cost in accessing the necessary resources (Bandic at Para. [0007]).
Regarding Claim 2
Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic teach the method as claimed in claim 1. Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic further teach:
wherein the one or more suggestions are predictive, preventive, palliative and curative care. [Bandic teaches at para. [0063] the user will use the device in the privacy of their home, work, or any other location to perform remote monitoring and submit images to track progress of their skin’s health or medical conditions. Bandic teaches at para. [0063] a practitioner may be able to remotely guide changes in treatment or guide on prevention factors. This is interpreted as wherein the one or more suggestions are preventative care.]
Regarding Claim 3
Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic teach the method as claimed in claim 1. Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic further teach:
the one or more sensors comprise a body temperature sensor, a location sensor, and a combination thereof. [Shelton teaches at para. [0027] the biomarkers measured by the one or more sensing systems will include, but are not limited to, sleep, core body temperature, maximal oxygen consumption, physical activity, alcohol consumption, respiration rate, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, blood sugar, heart rate variability, blood potential of hydrogen, hydration state, heart rate, skin conductance, peripheral temperature, tissue perfusion pressure, coughing and sneezing, gastrointestinal motility, gastrointestinal tract imaging, respiratory tract bacteria edema, mental aspects, sweat, circulating tumor cell autonomic tone, circadian rhythm, and/or menstrual cycle.]
Regarding Claim 6
Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic teach the method as claimed in claim 1. Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic further teach:
wherein the output unit is configured to deliver the one or more suggestions through a visual display, an audio-based suggestions, and a suggestive pop-up message on the one or more user devices. [Shelton teaches at para. [0155] for example, pancreatic leaks will be clear and very difficult to perceive, and alternate visualization technique(s) will be used to detect these and the healthcare professional will be alerted accordingly. Shelton teaches at para. [0155] in case of signaling undesirable outcome not currently visible on the main screen, a popup (e.g. in the corner of main monitor) will be used to show a detected leak currently not visible (E.g., leak currently not visible dure to off screen or leak currently not visible in current visual spectrum).]
Regarding Claim 7
Due to its similarity to Claim 1, Claim 7 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11
Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic teach the system as claimed in claim 7. Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic further teach:
Due to its similarity to Claim 3, Claim 11 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12
Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic teach the system as claimed in claim 7. Shelton/Lawrence/Bandic further teach:
wherein the output unit for one or more user devices is configured to deliver one or more suggestions through a visual display, an audio-based suggestion, a suggestive pop-up message on user’s mobile, personal computer, e-device screen from time to time or combinations thereof. [Shelton teaches at para. [0155] for example, pancreatic leaks will be clear and very difficult to perceive, and alternate visualization technique(s) will be used to detect these and the healthcare professional will be alerted accordingly. Shelton teaches at para. [0155] in case of signaling undesirable outcome not currently visible on the main screen, a popup (e.g. in the corner of main monitor) will be used to show a detected leak currently not visible (E.g., leak currently not visible dure to off screen or leak currently not visible in current visual spectrum). The popup is interpreted to appear from time to time when signaling undesirable outcome not currently visible on the main screen.]
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 (claim 1 being representative) does not recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior including following rule or instructions, as recited in the Office Action. Rather, the amended claim 1, at least as amended, recites a method for providing one or more suggestions related to user’s skin health, by capturing user’s skin type using a photo of user’s face, retrieving upcoming weather based on the user’s location, determinig day of the cycle from the user device, incorporating multiple set of additional parameter’s to perform a multi-dimensional correlation across these different parameter to generate the one or more suggests.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to perform a medical screening and generate a dermatological suggestion on the basis of the medical screening. The Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that falls outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to assess the skin and provide a suggestion to a patient, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 is not merely reciting the organized human activity such as managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Rather, the amended claim 1 provides a technical solution for predicting warning signs and their effects on skin health based on the menstrual cycle, weather conditions (e.g., moisture levels such as high, low or normal), skin type, and other parameters, in order to generate one or more skincare-related suggestions accordingly. The claimed method extracts and processes various parameters, and, as claimed, goes beyond mere organized human activity as the recited limitation involves complexity in parameters extraction and further processing, including skin type, weather, day of cycle and other multiple set of parameters, to generate suggestions related to user’s skin health. Such generation of suggestions related to user’s skin health cannot be replicated through simple human behavior or following instructions. Moreover, the various limitations cited in the claim are not trivial nor achievable through human activity.
The complexity of the parameters is not a measure delineated in the MPEP that is absolutely determinative of human activity and thus the argument that the claim material goes beyond mere organized human activity is invalid. The Examiner disagrees that humans, with or without a computer, could not process complex parameters in the manner described in the Abstract idea to asses a user’s skin health. Doctors perform skin analysis and provide suggestions with and without devices and could complete the steps provided in the Abstract idea to provide skin analysis and provide suggestion(s).
Applicant reiterates that the human merely following instructions cannot replicate the process of generating suggestions related to user’s skin as recited in the claimed system due to the complexity, precision and sheer enormity of the number of combinations required to be resolved in several steps. Firstly, in identifying the user’s skin type using a photo will result in a subjective output, as the observer’s interpretation leading to inconsistent or inaccurate skin type classification.
Doctors perform assessments leading to skin type classification regularly from photos, online user interfaces, and other representations of the skin. The enormous number of combinations required and the practicality of trying/completing/executing them does not necessarily impact the determination of certain methods of organizing human activity. Even if the process was slow or impractical to perform manually, a human could still execute the steps in the abstract idea to provide a suggestion for a user(s) skin health.
Similarly, determining the upcoming weather based on the location and tracking of the cycle would be difficult for the human to do manually, as it requires to fetch the data from a weather data service provider based on the current location. Similarly performing multidimensional correlations across the multiple (i.e. first, second, and third set of parameters involves an immense amount of data processing that the human cannot perform without specialized tools.
The MPEP does not establish relative difficulty or practicality as a failsafe diagnostic tool for an improvement to the computer, or for any other technology or technical field.
Similarly, generating a first input based on multi-dimension correlation across first set of parameters, generating a second input based on multi-dimension correlation across first set of parameters, and generating the suggestions based on multi-dimension correlation across the first input, the second input, and the third set of parameters, further involves an immense amount of data processing and far beyond the capability of simple instructions. As illustrated in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b, multiple sets of parameters, each with a range of possible values, result in a very large number of possible combinations, making it impractical to analyze manually, even for experienced dermatologists. The complexity is further increased by the dynamic nature of the parameter’s – some changing gradually, other rapidly- making it impractical for a human, including a dermatologist, to continuously analyze and communicate regimen adjustments. For instance, changes in weather due to travel or seasonal variation would necessitate frequent modifications, which are neither feasible manually or cost-effective. In short, even with step by step guidance, a human would not have the ability to accurately extract and process the vast amount of real-time user parameters required to generate the suggestions, as this involves technical and computational tasks that require specialized software and high processing power.
Again, the MPEP does not establish relative difficulty or practicality as a failsafe diagnostic tool for an improvement to the computer, or for any other technology or technical field.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that mere interaction with a person and following general rules or instructions would not result in generating personalized skincare suggestions, because it goes beyond what simple human interaction or following instructions could accomplish and requires complex computations to detect subtle indicators of emerging skin related issues and generate appropriate treatment suggestions, which cannot be detected simply by following instructions or through human interaction alone. Applicant argues that the method is therefore distinct from any organizational method of human activity, as it relies on specific technical processes such as extracting skin type, upcoming weather, day of cycle, and other set of user parameters, performing multi-dimension correlations across the user parameters, generating suggestions related to user skin health, and displaying the suggestions to the user via the user device. As the claim 1 does not recite the organizational method of human activity, the claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception (step 2a: No). Thus, the claim 1 is patent eligible.
The 35 U.S.C.101 rejection outlines the position that the abstract idea is categorized as certain methods of human activity. The abstract idea is devoid of additional elements. The abstract idea encompasses and is directed to the certain methods of organizing activity. Again, the MPEP does not establish relative difficulty or practicality as a failsafe diagnostic tool for an improvement to the computer, or for any other technology or technical field. Moreover, and finally, the Examiner disagrees with the assertion that the claims go beyond what simple human interaction or following instruction could accomplish. Note that a dermatologist could complete the calculations (however slowly or laboriously) to determine the suggestion as per the recited claim limitations.
For example, there is a critical gap in current skincare practices which the present invention addressees a gap in current skincare practices. The present invention constitutes a practical application, by providing users with actionable, personalized skincare advice that evolves with them-empowering them in ways not previously possible.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. The problem of providing users with actionable, personalize skincare advice that evolves with them-empowering them in ways not previously possible is not a technological problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
The artificially intelligent based camera is not a generic component. Applicant argues that mere generic components cannot determine a user’s skin type. The integration of diverse user parameters into actionable insights represents the practical application that goes beyond performing generic computer functions. Applicant submits that the combination of the above mentioned additional elements contributes to a method that leverages technical process for diagnostic future skin issues and recommending skin care suggestions accordingly, which clearly integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant submits that the amened claims 1 as a whole integrates the tentative abstract idea into a practical application, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A, No) and thus is patent eligible.
The Examiner agrees with some of the assertions, particularly one that the artificial intelligence enabled camera goes beyond the role of the generic computer or computer part(s) that function as additional elements. The independent claims contain a variety of additional elements including one or more sensors, an input unit, output unit and an artificial intelligent based camera and a location sensor of the user device. These generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additional elements that generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot serve to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l), Relevant Consideration for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Integrate A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally note, that the MPEP does not preclude patentability via integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more, via generic computer component(s).
Applicant argues that the additional element of artificial intelligent based camera employed to determine the user skin type, is not a generic component, which amounts to significantly more.
The Examiner agrees with some of the assertions, particularly one that the artificial intelligence enabled camera goes beyond the role of the generic computer or computer part(s) that function as additional elements. The independent claims contain a variety of additional elements including one or more sensors, an input unit, output unit and an artificial intelligent based camera and a location sensor of the user device. These generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additional elements that generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot serve to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l), Relevant Consideration for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Integrate A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally note that the MPEP does not preclude patentability via integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more via generic computer component(s).
Generic computer components cannot perform the functions listed in the independent claim.
Note that the MPEP does not preclude patentability via integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more via a generic computer component(s).
Applicant submits that the innovation of the claimed system lies in its synergistic integration of multiple technical components -such as an artificial intelligence based camera, location sensor, and various user parameter sets, rather than in the independent functioning of these elements. The integration of diverse user parameters into actionable insights amounts to significantly more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two indicates a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application and that one way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application teaches that limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
There is no improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field recited, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Additionally, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer also indicates if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the Examiner should not determine the claim improves technology and if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. The claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical field indicates if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. Applicant claims a technical improvement, but the specification sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). Moreover, and most importantly, the claims themselves do not reflect a technical improvement to the functioning of a computer or improvement to another technology or technical field. Therefore the subject matter eligibility analysis determination was a “No” at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
Applicant argues that there is seamless interplay between technologies to enable dynamic data fusion and context aware analysis that standalone technologies cannot achieve. For instance, the system correlate skin type with environmental and behavioral data to predict and address potential skin concerns proactively. Furthermore, the system’s processing capabilities and adaptive workflows enhance clinical usability by presenting comprehensive insights instead of fragmented data streams, thereby transforming skin diagnostics and decision making. Applicant submits that the synergistic integration of multiple technical components, along with the system distinctive data flow and adaptive logic, are non-conventional and represent a significant advancement over existing approaches.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two indicates a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application and that one way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application teaches that limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional e