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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 are currently pending and under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 18, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
The citation of 2019003661 and 20210040658 contain incorrect publication date and name of patentee or applicant of the cited document number. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Element 1050 points to two separate and distinct features in Fig. 2A;
Element 1061 is referred to as “optics assembly” in Fig. 2A, however element 1061 appears in Fig. 10 as pointing to something that is not an “optics assembly”; and
It is unclear what each of the images are in Fig. 3;
Element 1711 points to two separate and distinct boxes in Fig. 17A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters:
“105” has been used to designate both “devices” and “input/output interface”;
“1030” has been used to designate both “target skin” and “target tissue”; and
“1300” has been used to designate both a component “handpiece” and system “skin imaging handpiece” and appears pointing towards two separate parts in Fig. 2B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Element 100 “skin diagnostic system” in Fig. 1B mentioned in ¶[53];
Element 109 “treatment module” in Fig. 1A mentioned in ¶[54];
Element 1004 “fiducial markers” in Fig. 2A mentioned in ¶[61];
Element 1301 “trigger button” in Fig. 2B and 2C mentioned in ¶[65];
Element 1303 “frame” in Fig. 2C mentioned in ¶[65]; and
Element 1204 example “line of the LUT with the closest value for melanin and where other skin attributes are closest to zero” in Fig. 12 mentioned in ¶[91].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Element 1024 in Fig. 2A;
Elements 1060, 1063, and 1065 in Fig. 10;
Element 1205 in Fig. 12; and
Element 1409 in Fig. 14A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the analyzed the target skin” in ¶[61] should be rewritten as “the analyzed target skin” for grammar;
“port whine stains hemangioma” in ¶[141] should be rewritten as “port wine stains, hemangioma” for spelling and grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “receive the target skin data of two monochromatic of the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths” should be rewritten as “receive the target skin data of two monochromatic wavelengths of the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a source for providing energy-based treatment” in claims 1 and 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the case of “a source for providing energy-based treatment” the limitation is interpreted as “intense pulsed light (IPL)” or similar as defined in ¶[150].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18, dependent on claim 17, recites the limitation of “the pigment lesion model” As-filed, the specification discloses a pigment lesion model and in ¶[116] the spec describes a pigment depth model. However, as-filed the specification does not provide any description pertaining to the pigment lesion model and it is unclear what this model is. MPEP 2163.03(V) states that the written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." As such, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention since as-filed the specification does not describe enough information on the pigment lesion model. Claim 17 contains “a pigment depth model”, however this appears to be more than a typographical mistake. Nonetheless, for the purpose of examination, as the claim is dependent on claim 17, the pigment lesion model will be interpreted as the pigment depth model described in ¶[116].
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 21 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 18 recites the limitations "the lowest wavelength value", “the second monochromatic wavelength” and “the highest wavelength value” in ln. 4-5 ; “the vascular depth model” in ln. 7; “the pixels not classified by the vascular depth model” in ln. 8; “the pigment lesion model” in ln. 10; and “the classifications of pigment lesion depths” in ln. 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the lowest wavelength value" will be interpreted as “a lowest wavelength value”; “the second monochromatic wavelength” as “one monochromatic wavelength”; “the highest wavelength value” as “a highest wavelength value”; “the vascular depth model” as “a vascular depth model”; “the pixels not classified by the vascular depth model” as “a plurality of pixels not classified by the vascular depth model”; “the pigment lesion model” as “pigment depth model” as detailed above; and “the classifications of pigment lesion depths” will be interpreted as “a classification of pigment lesion depths”.
Claim 21, dependent from claim 14, recites the limitations “the melanin density value” in ln. 2 and “the vascular density value” in ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. In claim 14, these limitations are claimed as “melanin density” and “vascular density,” therefore failing to provide adequate antecedent basis for “melanin density” and “vascular density” values. For the purposes of examination, “the melanin density value” and “the vascular density value” in claim 21 will be interpreted as “the melanin density” and “the vascular density” as claimed in claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract ideas of “activate the at least one source for illumination light to illuminate in a plurality of monochromatic wavelengths”; “obtain images from the image capture device in the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths”; “receive target skin data comprising data of each pixel of the obtained images”; “analyze the target skin data using a plurality of trained skin attribute models”; “determine, with the trained skin attribute models, at least one skin attributes classification of the target skin”; “analyze, with a trained skin treatment model, the at least one classification for the skin attributes of the target skin”; identify, with the trained skin treatment model, treatment parameters for the source of energy-based treatment for the at least one skin attributes classification determined”; and “display the treatment parameters identified to treat the skin attributes” without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 26 recite a system and a method for using the system, and therefore, they are a product and method, and fall within the statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claims 1 and 26 recite the limitations of activating the at least one source for illumination light to illuminate in a plurality of monochromatic wavelengths; obtaining images from the image capture device in the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths; receiving target skin data comprising data of each pixel of the obtained images; analyzing the target skin data using a plurality of trained skin attribute models; determining, with the trained skin attribute models, at least one skin attributes classification of the target skin; analyzing, with a trained skin treatment model, the at least one classification for the skin attributes of the target skin; identifying, with the trained skin treatment model, treatment parameters for the source of energy-based treatment for the at least one skin attributes classification determined; and displaying the treatment parameters identified to treat the skin attributes. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a processor”, which is a computer processor, “a display”, “at least one source for illumination light”, “an image capture device”, “a source for providing energy-based treatment”, and “a memory”. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, “a display”, “at least one source for illumination light”, “an image capture device”, “a source for providing energy-based treatment”, and “a memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. For example, aside from the “processor”, “display”, “source for illumination light”, “image capture device”, “source for providing energy-based treatment”, and “memory” language, the claim encompasses the user inspecting skin, identifying any issues with the skin, and deciding and showing a treatment plan. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a person looking at a target skin, noting any areas that need treatment, deciding on a treatment plan, and writing that treatment plan down. This is a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim recites additional elements: “a processor”, “a display”, “at least one source for illumination light”, “an image capture device”, “a source for providing energy-based treatment”, and “a memory” to perform the abstract steps.
The system for determining skin attributes and treatment parameters consisting of the “display”, “memory” and “processor” read on a computer implemented system and are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor with memory, performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data and displaying that data. This generic limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see ¶[160]). Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The “source for illumination light” and “image capture device” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., claimed broadly encompassing “such as a multispectral camera” ¶[57] and “such as LEDs” ¶[63], and other options capable of any illumination and capable of any image capture) and amount to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering by the system to analyze the skin.
The “source for providing energy-based treatment” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., “may include but are not limited to lasers, intense pulsed light, radio frequency, ultrasound, visible light, ultra-violet light, light-emitting diodes (LED), or any combination thereof” ¶[51], in addition to any equivalents under the doctrine of equivalents) and amounts to no more than a generic post-solution activity.
Step 2B
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a post-solution activity that is not directed by the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification in ¶[160] does not provide any indication that the computer processor, memory, and display is anything other than a generic, off-the shelf computer component. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐ implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the “source for illumination light” and “image capture device” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., “such as LEDs” ¶[63] and “such as a multispectral camera” ¶[57]) which individually and in combination amount to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering by the system to analyze the skin. This pre-solution activity of image gathering using illumination light and an image capture device is well-understood, routine, and conventional technology in the field of skincare: “skin imaging technologies have also advanced by leaps and bounds, especially in the area of polarized light and fluorescence photography, which are commonly used in conjunction with image analysis techniques. In fact, it is now quite common for laboratories to carry out multi-spectral multi-modal imaging, which combines polarized light, fluorescence, and other modes of photography under one umbrella” and for polarized light photography specifically, “The mounting of illuminating lights is a key factor in obtaining properly lit images.”(McMullen R. et al. “Imaging Techniques and Analysis for Quantification of Skin Appearance”. Plastic Surgery Key. Internet Archive. Oct. 27, 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20161027182136/https://plasticsurgerykey.com/imaging-techniques-and-analysis-for-quantification-of-skin-appearance/). Additionally, multispectral imaging is a well-known imaging technology that commonly uses LED illumination: “LED illumination based multispectral imaging is getting much attention in recent years due to its fast computer controlled switching ability, availability of many different LEDs, robustness, and cost effectiveness” (Shrestha R. et al. Multispectral imaging using LED illumination and an RGB camera. 21st Color and Imaging Conference Final Program and Proceedings. 2013; p. 8-13.) All uses of the recited abstract idea require the pre-solution of data gathering.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, “source for providing energy-based treatment” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., “may include but are not limited to lasers, intense pulsed light, radio frequency, ultrasound, visible light, ultra-violet light, light-emitting diodes (LED), or any combination thereof” ¶[51]) and amounts to no more than a generic post-solution activity. This activity of treating the skin with an energy-based source is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of skincare: “since the birth of modern pulsed or scanned lasers for dermatologic use in the mid-1980s, there has been an explosive growth in the number and type of devices entering in the market. This has dramatically expanded the number of conditions that can be successfully treated with lasers, and now also other energy-based devices” (Bernstein et al. Chapter 14 Laser and Energy-Based Devices for the Consumer: The Future of Esthetic Energy-Based Devices. Laser and Light Source Treatments for the Skin. 2014; p.186-192.) The abstract idea is not directed towards using the energy-based source.
Dependent claims 2, 4-25 and 27-30 add additional abstract limitations or further limit the process of activating the at least one source for illumination light to illuminate in a plurality of monochromatic wavelengths; obtaining images from the image capture device in the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths; receiving target skin data comprising data of each pixel of the obtained images; analyzing the target skin data using a plurality of trained skin attribute models; determining, with the trained skin attribute models, at least one skin attributes classification of the target skin; analyzing, with a trained skin treatment model, the at least one classification for the skin attributes of the target skin; identifying, with the trained skin treatment model, treatment parameters for the source of energy-based treatment for the at least one skin attributes classification determined; and displaying the treatment parameters identified to treat the skin attributes. Therefore, these claims further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claims 1 and 26 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claims 1 and 26 above.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 adds the limitation “wherein the source of energy-based treatment is activated to treat the target skin with the treatment parameters determined”. This claim adds a treatment parameter and is significantly more. Therefore, the claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22-23, 25-26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat et al. (WO 2021186443 A1, published Sept. 23 2021, hereinafter referred to as “Gat”) in view of Schuster et al. (US 20210220667 A1, published Jul. 22, 2021, hereinafter referred to as “Schuster”).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Gat teaches a system and method for determining skin attributes and treatment parameters of target skin for an aesthetic skin diagnosis and treatment unit (Fig. 1 “a system 101 for determining an optimal set of operating parameters for an aesthetic skin treatment unit 103” in ¶[0044]), comprises: a display (“a display” ¶[0048]); at least one source for illumination light (Fig. 1 “the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 may include… one or more sources of illumination light” in ¶[0047]); an image capture device (Fig. 1 “the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 may include… one or more sensors configured to obtain measured light or images” in ¶[0047]); a source for providing energy-based treatment (Fig. 1 “the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 is associated with a source of treatment light along a main optical axis of the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103” in ¶[0047]); a processor (Fig. 1 element 104 “processor” in ¶[0045]); a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (Fig. 1 “the memory 106 may be communicatively coupled to the one or more processors 104” in ¶[0045]), wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions (Fig. 1 “The memory 106 stores instructions, executable by the one or more processors 104” in ¶[0045]), which, on execution, cause the processor to: activate the at least one source for illumination light to illuminate in a plurality of monochromatic wavelengths; obtain images from the image capture device in the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths (Fig. 1 “the multi spectral images may be captured by triggering the illumination light to various wavelengths using a monochrome sensor associated with the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103” in ¶[0059]); receive target skin data comprising data of each pixel of the obtained images (“extensive information obtained with spectral images relates to the actual substance of the target skin tissue and its spectral behavior” (spectral behavior is tied to pixel information) in ¶[0059]); analyze the target skin data using a plurality of trained skin attribute models (Fig. 2 “upon receiving the target skin data 205, the treatment data analyze module 202 analyzes the target skin data 205 using a plurality of trained models to predict a plurality of sets of operating parameters 315, 316, 317 for the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 to perform the aesthetic treatment” in ¶[0060]); and display the treatment parameters (Fig. 1 “the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 may further comprise a display unit configured to display the optimal set of operating parameters provided by the system 101” in ¶[0048]).
Gat does not disclose determining, with the trained skin attribute models, at least one skin attributes classification of the target skin; analyzing, with a trained skin treatment model, the at least one classification for the skin attributes of the target skin; identifying, with the trained skin treatment model, treatment parameters for the source of energy-based treatment for the at least one skin attributes classification determined; or displaying the treatment parameters identified to treat the skin attributes.
Schuster’s invention relates to laser-based aesthetic treatments, more specifically, the present invention is directed to provide a system and method to perform real time monitoring of laser treatment procedures, thus paving the way in an effort towards automation of aesthetic medical laser platforms (¶[0068]). Schuster discloses numerous reasons for needing a more robust way of personalized skin analysis and tailed treatment regimen including helping inexperienced users and reducing treatment cycles. The system may perform at the treatment target location, real time skin diagnostic (determine skin attributes classifications) and monitoring and adjust the laser parameters (energy-based treatment) continuously, using embedded algorithms and artificial intelligence methods (trained skin attribute models and trained skin treatment models) (¶[0075]). The invention is designed to take the guesswork and manual operation out of aesthetic treatments (¶[0079]). Data received by the device may be processed (analyzed) to determine (identification) what settings to apply to the tissue and provide the operator of the device suggested treatment parameters or regimens (¶[0108]). Further, in FIG. 9H, a display 800 on GUI 816 displays a live skin image 817 as well as the treatment spots 818 (¶[0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine at least one skin attributes classification, use a trained model to analyze the classification, then identify a treatment parameter for the laser, and finally display the plan as taught by Schuster in the device and method for determining skin attributes and treatment parameters of target skin for an aesthetic skin diagnosis of Gat in order to create a more robust way of personalized skin analysis and tailed treatment regimen and take the guesswork out of the procedure.
Regarding claim 3, Gat discloses wherein the source of energy-based treatment is activated to treat the target skin with the treatment parameters determined (“a controller configured to activate the one or more sources of treatment light with the optimal set of operating parameters and direct the treatment light towards a target skin tissue” in ¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Gat does not disclose wherein the plurality of different wavelengths comprises 450nm, 490nm, 570nm, 590nm, 660nm, 770nm, and 850nm.
The instant specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed values of “the plurality of different wavelengths comprises 450nm, 490nm, 570nm, 590nm, 660nm, 770nm, and 850nm “ is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed values.
Schuster discloses various wavelengths. The source of illumination light may be a plurality of light sources having different wavelengths of light outputs with LED light sources ranging from 400-900 nm ¶[0037]. The controller can selectively activate one or more sources of illumination light depending on the depth within the skin tissue ¶[0043]. The specific wavelengths in the invention are exemplary only and others may be used with a main goal of providing a wide spectrum of illumination with which to apply to the skin so that reflectance can be measured using the sensors. Further, it is known that different wavelengths impinging on the skin tissue will have different reflectances/scattering ¶[0108].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select wavelengths comprising 450nm, 490nm, 570nm, 590nm, 660nm, 770nm, and 850nm which fall within the range of 400-900 nm as taught by Schuster in step of illuminating light in a plurality of monochromatic wavelengths of Gat in order to measure reflectance in different depths in the target skin.
Regarding claim 7, Gat discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate and display a map of the target skin with any combination of the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths (“skin characteristics are key new indexes and will be used in part to map a skin abnormality over an area to ascertain size, orientation, placement, and so on, on a body of the patient” in ¶[0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Gat discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate and display a map of the target skin from the wavelengths that represent red, green, and blue (“the skin treatment data may be received in a form of at least one of multi-spectral images of the skin tissue, color images also known as Red Green Blue images (RGB) or a combination of both images of the skin tissue. The combination of the three channels (RGB) into a single image usually achieves a natural look of an image captured” in ¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Gat does not teach wherein the skin attribute is at least one of: melanin density.
Schuster discloses in order to selectively destroy pigmented lesions, the practitioner may need to determine lesion type, skin type, the lesion's density of melanin, and the depth of the lesion e.g. (¶[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include variables such as melanin density as taught by Schuster as one of the skin attributes in the system of Gat in order to selectively destroy pigmented lesions.
Regarding claim 15, Gat teaches wherein one of the skin attributes is vascular lesion depth and a vascular depth model is one of the plurality of skin attribute models (Fig. 1 “the system 101 may be configured to perform segmentation and quantification of a vascular networks in terms of morphology, depth, and diameters for localizing the best spatial position for treatment” in ¶[0088]).
Regarding claim 17, Gat teaches wherein one of the skin attributes is pigment lesion depth and a pigment depth model is one of the plurality of skin attribute models (“skin attributes such as… lesion type, pigment depth, pigment intensity… are considered in deciding which operating parameters to use” in ¶[0101]).
Regarding claim 19, Gat teaches wherein one of the skin attributes is pigment lesion intensity and a pigment intensity model is one of the plurality of skin attribute models (“skin attributes such as… lesion type, pigment depth, pigment intensity… are considered in deciding which operating parameters to use” in ¶[0101]).
Regarding claims 22 and 29, Gat teaches wherein the processor (Fig. 1 element 104 “processor” in ¶[0045]) with the trained skin treatment model (Fig. 2 “plurality of trained models to predict a plurality of sets of operating parameters 315, 316, 317 for the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 to perform the aesthetic treatment” in ¶[0060]), are further configured to: receive information of; treatment safety parameters (“the preset operating parameters 207a comprises… a safety parameter as a function of the intended treatment and/or clinical effect for a specific skin type of a patient” in ¶[0054]), energy treatment source capability parameters (Fig. 1 “the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 may be an energy-based unit configured to output laser beams” in ¶[0046] and “the operating parameters may be… laser parameters, lamp parameters, or any other energy parameters which may define the energy characteristics as emitted, delivered or interact with a target skin tissue by any energy modality as defined above” in ¶[0050]), at least one skin area to treat from a user (“the controller is configured to activate the one or more sources of treatment light with the optimal set of operating parameters and direct the treatment light towards a target skin tissue” in ¶[0049]), at least one skin problem indication for treatment based on the skin area to treat from a user (Fig. 1 “aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 may be configured to provide various aesthetic treatments such as for example, hair removal, tattoo removal, … and so on” in ¶[0048]), output of the plurality of the skin attribute models related to the at least one skin problem indication (Fig. 2 “The system 101 implements deep learning approach to determine the optimal set of operating parameters 207b… the preset operating parameters 207a are inputted to the system 101, to output the optimal set of operating parameters 207b” in ¶[0064]); determine, based on the information received, target skin treatment parameters of the energy-based treatment (“The operating parameter determine module 203 may be configured to determine the optimal set of operating parameters 207b. The optimal set of the operating parameters may be determined using the plurality of sets of operating parameters” in ¶[0084]); and display the target skin treatment parameters of the energy-based treatment (“once the expert A [or first module] is trained using images of "before" and "after" the aesthetic treatment, the expert A may dynamically display decisions of the aesthetic treatment, by choosing the optimal operating parameters 207b” in ¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 23 and 30, Gat does not disclose wherein the determination of the skin treatment parameters is done with a treatment look up table and the processor is further configured to: determine which one of a plurality of skin treatment look up tables, each of the skin treatment look up tables is based on a particular skin problem indication; match the output of the plurality of the skin attribute models to a treatment parameter of the determined skin treatment look up table; and display the matched skin treatment parameters of the energy-based treatment.
Shuster discloses the step of the programmable controller processing the measured light received from the output of the one or more sensors and providing a treatment light regimen includes the step of analyzing the information by matching the information to information contained in a lookup table in a memory associated with the programmable controller, and selecting a treatment regimen based on a match in the lookup table. Further, it includes the step of analyzing the information by matching the information to information contained in one or more embedded algorithms contained in a memory associated with the programmable controller, and selecting a treatment regimen based on a match. (¶[0039]). The device is programmed to display a live skin image as well as the treatment spots (¶[0106]). The programmable controller may have a memory containing a lookup table that matches, for example, reflectance measurements to certain skin conditions, taking into account skin types, and control the application of laser treatment or provide the operator of the device with suggested treatment parameters or regimens (¶[0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lookup table based on different skin problem indications and display the treatment parameters as taught by Schuster in the skincare system of Gat in order to select a treatment regimen based on certain skin conditions and provide the operator with suggested treatments.
Regarding claim 25, Gat teaches wherein the at least one skin problem indication is at least one of; pigment lesions (“lesion type, pigment depth, pigment intensity” in ¶[0101]), vascular lesions (“vascular stain treatment” in ¶[0048]), combination pigment and vascular lesion (“pigmented or vascular stain treatment” in ¶[0048]), hair removal (“hair removal” in ¶[0048]), or any combination thereof.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat and Schuster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson et al. (EP 3933680 A1, published January 5, 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Robinson”).
Regarding claim 2, Gat and Schuster disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system of claim 1.
Gat does not disclose wherein the system generates and displays a list of attributes of the target skin based on the analysis by the trained skin attribute models. Although Schuster discloses wherein a display 800 in Fig. 9H on GUI 816 will, using the images obtained, display a live skin image 817 as well as the treatment spots 818, Schuster does not disclose providing a list of the attributes.
Robinson’s invention relates to digital imaging systems and methods, and more particularly to, digital imaging systems and methods for analyzing pixel data of an image of a user's body for determining a hair density value of the user's hair. Robinson discloses a display screen for displaying graphics, images, text, product recommendations, data, pixels, features, and/or other such visualizations or information as described herein (¶[0032]). The display can output the new product recommendation which may be further based on the composite hair density value, and the composite hair density value may be rendered on the display screen of the user computing device (¶[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display a list of attributes of the target skin as taught by Robinson in the system of Gat and Schuster in order to use the attributes for further treatment recommendations.
Regarding claim 11, Gat and Schuster disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system of claim 1. Gat also teaches wherein one of the skin attributes is skin type (“skin attributes such as skin type” in ¶[0101]).
Gat and Schuster do not teach a skin type model is one of the plurality of skin attribute models.
Robinson discloses in the example of FIG. 4, the feature(s) identified within area of pixel data 202ap may include the user-specific hair density of the user's neck area, the hair density of the portion of the user's neck represented by pixel 202ap2, irritation of the skin, skin type (therefore a skin type model), skin tone, and other features shown in area of pixel data 202ap (¶[0081]). In the embodiment of FIG. 4, user-specific electronic recommendation 412 comprises a message 412m to the user designed to address at least one feature identifiable within the pixel data of the user's body or body area. As shown in the example of FIG. 4, message 412m recommends to the user to apply a shaving gel or cream to their neck to soften the neck hair and reduce skin irritation while shaving (¶[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a skin type model as taught by Robinson in the system of Gat and Schuster in order to determine the skin type of the skin and be able to use it for treatment recommendations such as applying shaving gel or cream to reduce irritation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gat and Schuster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20190366119 A1, published Dec. 5, 2019, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 4, Gat and Schuster disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system of claim 1.
Gat and Schuster do not disclose wherein the plurality of trained skin attribute models are trained by; (i) providing a plurality of labelled images of at least one skin attribute stored in a database to the skin attribute models, and (ii) configuring the skin attribute models to classify the plurality of labelled images into at least one skin attribute.
Kim’s invention relates to a light output device for caring for the skin of a user using artificial intelligence and a method of operating the same. One goal of the invention is to provide a device capable of performing efficient skin care, by changing a light irradiation time and a light irradiation intensity according to the skin state of each part (¶[0009]). Machine learning is defined as an algorithm that enhances the performance of a certain task through a steady experience with the certain task. Kim’s invention includes skin care model element 1200 in Fig. 12. The skin care model (skin attribute models) learns by receiving learning data which may include second and third type partial image data corresponding to the parts configuring the face and the values of the skin state variables (skin attribute) (¶[0249]). The labeling data labelled in the partial image data set may be the values of the skin state variables (¶[0250]). When an input feature vector is extracted from a partial image data set for learning and is input to the skin care model 1200 (Fig. 12), a skin state result indicating a skin state may be output as a target feature vector (¶[0251]). The skin care model 1200 may output a set 1250 of the values of the skin state variables indicating the skin states and the set 1250 of the values of the skin state variables (¶[0259]). The AI server 200 may store the learned image conversion model and the skin care model, analyze the received image using the stored models, and infer the skin states according to the result of analysis (¶[0266]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to train the skin attribute models by providing a plurality of labelled images with at least one skin attribute stored in a database and configure the skin attribute models to classify the plurality of labelled images into at least one skin attribute as taught by Kim, in the system of Gat and Schuster, in order to provide a light output device that improves efficiency of treating target skin attributes through machine learning which enhances the performance of a certain task through a steady experience with the certain task.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat and Schuster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rajagopalan et al. (WO 2022174091 A1, published Aug. 18, 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Rajagopalan”).
Regarding claim 6, Gat and Schuster disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system of claim 1.
Gat and Schuster do not disclose wherein the processor is further configured, after obtaining the images, to register and align the images of the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths.
Rajagopalan’s invention relates to systems for treating a patient and deliver a material that provides therapeutic benefit to the patient. The system may include registration data encompassing one or more images captured by an imaging device at any point before or during treatment. The data can be used to align images. The treatment image data can be displayed to the operator and can be used to guide the treatment automatically and/or semi-automatically (¶[0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to register and align the obtained images as taught by Rajagopalan in the system of Gat and Schuster in order to provide a means to automatically and/or semi-automatically guide a medical treatment.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat and Schuster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yadav et al. (US 20210406589 A1, published Dec. 30, 2021, hereinafter referred to as “Yadav”).
Regarding claim 9, Gat and Schuster disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system of claim 1. Gat also teaches wherein one of the skin attributes is hair on the target skin and a hair mask model is one of the plurality of skin attribute models (“considering the skin attributes such as… hair color, hair density… to decide which operating parameters to use” in ¶[0101]) and the processor is further configured to: receive the target skin data of one monochromatic wavelengths of the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths (Fig. 2 “the multi spectral images may be captured by triggering the illumination light to various wavelengths using a monochrome sensor associated with the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103… extensive information obtained with spectral images relates to the actual substance of the target skin tissue and its spectral behavior” (spectral behavior is tied to pixel information) in ¶[0059]).
Gat and Schuster do not disclose determine, with the hair mask model, one of two classifications, hair or background, for each pixel of an image of the one monochromatic wavelength.
Yadav’s invention relates to a system that masks portions of an image that are not relevant to a particular task, thus, reducing the amount of data used by applications for image processing tasks. For example, images to be processed using a hair color classification model are masked so that only portions that show the person's hair are available for the model to analyze. In Fig. 1, a device received input image data and selects a first component configured to obscure the input image data. For hair-based classification, the first component may select irrelevant pixels as those that do not represent hair in the image (background), and obscure these pixels to generate masked image data (¶[0024]). The device processes the input image data to determine masked image data including a first portion of unmasked/non-obscured pixels (background) (from the input image data) that are relevant for the task, and a second portion of pixels (from the input image data) that are obscured (e.g., blacked out, zeroed out, set to null values, or otherwise masked) due to the second portion of pixels (hair) being determined by the first component as not relevant to the task (¶[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine hair or background pixels as taught by Yadav in the system of Gat and Schuster in order to provide a means for masking portions of the images that are not necessary for further analysis.
Regarding claim 10, Gat and Schuster in further view of Yadav teach the system of claim 9.
Yadav also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: instruct additional skin attribute models to remove hair pixels labeled hair by the hair mask model from further analysis of target skin.
Referring to Fig. 4 of Yadav’s invention, the masked image data 414 may be determined by an elementwise product between the mask data 413 and the input image data 402. The masked image data 414 includes a first portion of pixels that correspond to/are the same as a portion of the pixels of the input image data 402 that are relevant for the task. For example, the first portion of pixels of the masked image data 414 may correspond to a representation of hair in the input image data 402. The masked image data 414 includes a second portion of pixels that correspond to the remaining pixels of the input image data 402 that are not relevant for the task. The second portion of pixels in the masked image data 414 may be zeroed out, blacked out, obscured or otherwise have values different than the pixels relevant for the task (¶[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove hair pixels as taught by Yadav in the system of Gat and Schuster in view of Yadav in order to mask images that are not relevant to a particular task.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat, Schuster, and Robinson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rothwell (WO 2022126277 A1, published Jun. 23, 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Rothwell”), further in view of Langeveld et al. (Langeveld M, et al. Skin measurement devices to assess skin quality: A systematic review on reliability and validity. Skin Res Technol. 2022 Mar;28(2):212-224. doi: 10.1111/srt.13113., hereinafter referred to as Langeveld) as evidenced by Ward et al. (Ward WH, et al. Clinical Presentation and Staging of Melanoma. Cutaneous Melanoma: Etiology and Therapy [Internet]. 2017 Dec 21. TABLE 1, Fitzpatrick Classification of Skin Types I through VI. doi: 10.15586/codon.cutaneousmelanoma.2017.ch6 , hereinafter referred to as “Ward”).
Regarding claim 12, Gat and Schuster and Robinson disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system of claim 11.
Gat and Schuster and Robinson do not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: receive skin type data comprising an average calibrated reflectance value of total pixels of each monochrome image; and determine, with the skin type model, six classifications of skin type.
Rothwell’s invention relates to systems and methods for hyperspectral imaging of plants. The computing system may measure an intensity of reflectance at one or more spatial locations (e.g. pixels of the multispectral image) representing the calibration subject for at least one of the spectral channels of the calibration image and determine from these a calibration reflectance (e.g. by using the value of the spectral intensity as provided by the multispectral image, by averaging the intensities in a channel at multiple spatial locations, and/or in any other suitable way). For example, in at least one embodiment, the computing system calculates an average calibration reflectance intensity ct for a plurality of pixels representing a substantially non-reflective black patch in each channel (¶[0062]). Fig. 2 shows a flowchart illustrating an example method for characterizing plants based on reflectance values of a hyperspectral image (¶[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive skin type data comprising an average calibrated reflectance value of total pixels of each monochrome image as taught by Rothwell in the system of Gat and Schuster and Robinson in order to characterize different features based on the reflectance values.
Rothwell does not teach determine, with the skin type model, six classifications of skin type.
Langeveld teaches that in case of skin color, a previous study correlates measurements of the Mexameter MX 18, Colorimeter CL‐400, and DSM II ColorMeter to the Fitzpatrick skin phototyping scale. The Fitzpatrick scale is widely used to categorize skin color but was originally developed to select the correct dose of photochemotherapy in the treatment of psoriasis. The parameters assessed in the Fitzpatrick scale are, therefore, primarily focused on predicting the reaction of the skin to ultraviolet light. Ward shows that the Fitzpatrick scale consists of 6 skin type classifications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine six classifications of skin type as taught by Langeveld as evidenced by in the system of Gat and Schuster and Robinson in view of Rothwell in order to predict the reaction of the skin to ultraviolet light.
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat and Schuster as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, as evidenced by BLT (BLT Inc. “What is a lookup table (LUT)?” Aug. 20, 2025 https://bltinc.com/2025/08/20/what-is-a-lookup-table-lut/) and further in view of McDowall et al. (WO 2018049215 A1, published Mar. 15, 2018, hereinafter referred to as “McDowall”).
Regarding claims 14 and 27, Gat and Schuster disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system and method of claim 13 and 26. Gat also teaches a melanin model (“skin characteristics such as melanin… and so on of the skin may be learned as the features using the multi spectral images” in ¶[0059]). Schuster also discloses compared to a look up table (LUT) values (analyzing the information by matching the information to information contained in a lookup table in a memory associated with the programmable controller, and selecting a treatment regimen based on a match in the lookup table in ¶[0039]), wherein the LUT comprises values for skin models that represent known physical models of illumination effects on human skin and represent physical measurements of concentration of the skin attributes in the target skin (“lookup table that matches, for example, reflectance measurements to certain skin conditions” in ¶[0108]); and identify for each pixel the one LUT entry for at least one of melanin density (in order to selectively destroy pigmented lesions, the practitioner may need to determine lesion type, skin type, the lesion's density of melanin, and the depth of the lesion e.g. in ¶[0029]) with the value closest in distance to the plurality of measured absolute values for each pixel, wherein this distance may be a similarity of certain distances. Schuster’s LUT inherently finds the value closest in distance the values in the lookup table but does not go so far as to teach a motivation to include a LUT in a system which does not already comprise a LUT.
BLT teaches that a LUT is common for speed and simplicity in finding values and has existed for centuries (first paragraph and section “The Origins of the Lookup Table Concept”). When the system encounters one of these inputs, it retrieves the corresponding result directly from memory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gat to include a LUT as taught in combination with Schuster, because evidence provided by BLT teaches that the LUT provides a benefit of speed and simplicity (BLT, first paragraph).
Specifically for claim 27 and as shown in claim 13, Schuster also discloses wherein the skin attribute is at least one of; melanin density (in order to selectively destroy pigmented lesions, the practitioner may need to determine lesion type, skin type, the lesion's density of melanin, and the depth of the lesion e.g. in ¶[0029]).
Gat and Schuster do not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: receive skin type data comprising a plurality of absolute reflectance values for each pixel representing the plurality of wavelengths.
McDowall’s invention relates to imaging techniques used in surgical procedures, and more particularly to hyperspectral imaging combined with visual imaging. When depth information is available, e.g., from frames captured by a stereoscopic camera or from an endoscope that includes a depth sensing device, the information in the hyperspectral frames can be analyzed to determine the absolute reflectance, as compared with the relative reflectance, of tissue. The absolute reflectance permits, for example, the determination of diseased tissue, or the clinical assessment of the rate of hepatic function in absolute terms (¶[0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive the absolute reflectance values of the target skin for each pixel representing the plurality of wavelengths as taught by McDowall as evidenced by BLT and analyze it with the melanin model and LUT in the system and method of Gat and Schuster in order to determine diseased tissue in absolute terms.
Claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat and Schuster as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20170294015 A1, published Oct. 12, 2017, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 16, Gat and Schuster disclose the skin diagnosis and treatment system of claim 15.
Gat also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the target skin data of the plurality of monochromatic wavelengths (Fig. 2 “the multi spectral images may be captured by triggering the illumination light to various wavelengths using a monochrome sensor associated with the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103… extensive information obtained with spectral images relates to the actual substance of the target skin tissue and its spectral behavior” in ¶[0059]) and the vascular lesion model (“the system 101 may be configured to perform segmentation and quantification of a vascular networks in terms of morphology, depth, and diameters for localizing the best spatial position for treatment” in ¶[0088]).
Gat and Shuster do not disclose determining a classification for each pixel, with the vascular lesion model, of one of four classifications, background; and generating and displaying a map with markings to illustrate the classifications of vascular lesion depths.
Wang’s invention relates to quantitative assessment of medical images including systems and methods for evaluating vascular image data of a region of interest in a subject. In the method shown in Fig. 2 at step 204, the process 200 that includes instructions in the memory of the system and generates a binary vascular map where the image is reduced to binary values in which one value indicates a vessel area and another value indicates a non-vessel area (background) (¶[0023] and ¶[0025]). This information can be used to calculate other values related to the vasculature in the images and helps simplify the process of identifying pathological vascular features and enable the objective assessment of disease progression and treatment monitoring (¶[0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a classification for each pixel of the vascular lesion as taught by Wang in the system of Gat and Schuster in order to evaluate the image data of a region of interest and detect and assess vascular abnormalities.
Regarding claim 24, Gat teaches wherein processor (Fig. 1 element 104 “processor” in ¶[0045]) with the trained skin treatment model (Fig. 2 “plurality of trained models to predict a plurality of sets of operating parameters 315, 316, 317 for the aesthetic skin treatment unit 103 to perform the aesthetic treatment” in ¶[0060]), are further configured to: generate and display a red green and blue (RGB) image of the target skin (“the skin treatment data may be received in a form of at least one of multi-spectral images of the skin tissue, color images also known as Red Green Blue images (RGB) or a combination of both images of the skin tissue. The combination of the three channels (RGB) into a single image usually achieves a natural look of an image captured” ¶[0058]).
Gat and Schuster do not disclose wherein the processor generates and saves to memory at least one of a plurality of maps, display the at least one generated map, wherein the at least one of the plurality of maps comprises; vascular density map.
Wang teaches a vessel skeleton map and vessel perimeter map are generated from the binary vasculature map. Based on the three generated maps, a vessel area density, vessel skeleton density, vessel perimeter index, vessel diameter index, and vessel complexity can be determined (abstract). In particular, a vessel density map, vessel diameter map, and vessel complexity map may be useful for detecting regions with vascular abnormalities that could also leak fluorescein on FA images (¶[0041]). The vessel density map, vessel diameter map, and vessel complexity map can be calculated and overlaid with the binary vasculature map (FIG. 3B), which would make it easier to localize the particular vessels of interests (¶[0045]). Additionally, the memory can be configured to store information (e.g., image data, subject information or profiles, environmental data, data collected from one or more sensors, media files) and/or executable instructions (¶[0020]). One or more displays can provide video output and/or graphical representations of images formed by the system (¶[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate, save, and display maps such as a vascular density map as taught by Wang in the system of Gat and Schuster in order to make it easier to localize the particular vessels of interests by detecting regions with vascular abnormalities.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patwardhan (US 11278236 B2, published Mar. 22, 2022)
Sun et al. (US 20160228048 A1, published Aug. 11, 2016)
Mishra et al. (US 20210209754 A1, published July 8, 2021)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5 and every other F 8-4 ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/E.N.C./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792