DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application filed 11/17/25. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 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.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-15, and 18-20 are drawn to a system; claim 16 is drawn to a method, and claim 17 is drawn to a product/ article of manufacture.
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? (Prong One) If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? (Prong Two) A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-20 recite(s) a method and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The recited method and system are providing medical/dermatological recommendations to user based on information received (from a patient and/or healthcare provider) (i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people)
In particular, claims 1, 15-17 recite a method, systems, and product to :
acquire a reference information set including at least one reference information…,
acquire an environmental data from a patient terminal used by the patient in need of treatment for the photosensitivity related symptom,
generate a provision information including an information for predicting appearance of the photosensitivity related symptom based on the reference information set and the environmental data,
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 15-17 recite(s) have been amended to further recite: transmit/ transmitting the provision information to at least one of the patient terminal and the doctor terminal. However, this additional step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examples of insignificant extra-solution activity include mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and insignificant application. In the instant case, the additional step amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Claims 1, 15-17 recite(s) additional limitation(s), including: an information processing device; computer readable medium with a program; and a doctor or patient (computer) terminal. The additional components is/are generic components that perform routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “a terminal managed by a medical institution or an organization that provides a medical information, and by executing to processing the information via the patient terminal 20, the doctor terminal 30 and the network NW, and is configured to a part of the information provision system 1. The information processing device 10 may be, for instance, a workstation, a general-purpose computer such as a personal computer, or logically realized by a cloud computing. The information processing device 10 may be installed an application capable of communicating with the patient terminal 20 or the doctor terminal 30, or ins tailed a browser for accessing a web service that enables a communication. " (par. 165) The disclosure also states: “The patient terminal 20 executes to processing the information via the information processing device 10, the doctor terminal 30 and the network NW. The information processing device 10 may be, for instance, the general-purpose computer such as the workstation or the personal computer, or may be the mobile communication device such as a smart phone or the like.” (par. 166)
The application explains: “The doctor terminal 30 is, for instance, the terminal for grasping a condition of the patient, the terminal used by a doctor working in a medical institution such as a hospital, and executes the information processing via the information processing device 10 or the patient terminal 20 in addition the network NW. The doctor terminal 30 may be, for instance, the workstation or the general-purpose computer such as the personal computer, or may be the mobile communication device such as the smart phone” (see par. 167) and “the hardware configuration of the terminal such as the computers and the smartphones or the like implement the patient terminal 20 and the doctor terminal 30, is the same as the hardware configuration instance of the information processing device 10 shown in FIG. 2, therefore, a description is omitted.” (par. 176) Such language underscores that the applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of generic system components.
Claims 2-14 and 18-20 are dependent from Claim 1 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 1. However, the additional limitations of the claims 2-14, and 18-20 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 2-14 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
.Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinkovich et al (US 20150313532 A1) in view of Salorinne (US 20200281518 A1)
Claim 1, 15-17 Marinkovich teaches an information processing device, comprising: circuitry configured to and a non-transitory computer readable medium including a program to (par. 67-69):
acquire a reference information set including at least one reference information, and (par. 146- inputting location information of a user, and other contextual ambient information therefor, thereby facilitating determination of the UV level thereof. For example, and in no way limiting the scope of the invention, the location information may comprise geographic latitude information. In some scenarios, the geographic latitude information may comprise geographic data of a location, such as a Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) or postal code, street address, etc; par. 149)
acquire an environmental data (par. 107-110: receiving information on environmental factors-- sunburn and the redness owing to overexposure to sun is a function of the temperature, UV intensity, time of exposure, humidity, moisture and melanin levels of the skin, wind speed among other things. Thus, the system may facilitate measuring the aforementioned quantifiable qualitative and quantitative parameters thereby facilitating determination of the propensity to burn (or predictive susceptibility to sunburn upon sun exposure), intraday safe level (or amount) of sun exposure, maximum duration of sun exposure tolerance so as to avoid burning or causing extensive damage to the skin.; par. 146; par. 149)
generate a provision information including an information for predicting appearance of the photosensitivity related symptom based on the reference information set and the environmental data,, ( par. 108- the system may facilitate measuring the aforementioned quantifiable qualitative and quantitative parameters thereby facilitating determination of the propensity to burn (or predictive susceptibility to sunburn upon sun exposure), intraday safe level (or amount) of sun exposure, maximum duration of sun exposure tolerance so as to avoid burning or causing extensive damage to the skin; par 146., thereby facilitating determination of the associated geographic coordinates (often expressed as latitude and longitude) of the location based on the concept of geocoding using the geographic data; par. 152-153-providing recommendations)
wherein the at least one reference information is selected from reference information including a daylight hour until appearing a photosensitivity related symptom, a timing of the photosensitivity related symptom, a grade of the photosensitivity related symptom, (d) a Patient Global Impression of Change score, a skin pigment information, a melanin density, a quantity of a protoporphyrin in a blood, a type of a medicine, a prescription quantity of a medicine, a Fitzpatrick skin type, a Patient Global Impression Severity score , and a data acquired by a PROMIS (Patient- Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) (par. 149-the method 200 comprises measuring at least one of the melanin, redness (or Erythema), moisture levels and a combination thereof, in at least one of susceptible (or prone), user-anticipated, and a combination thereof, one or more zones of sun exposure on the skin, by a user via deployment of the system. Stated differently, the method 200 comprises measuring at least one of the melanin, redness (or Erythema), moisture levels and a combination thereof, in one or more zones of the skin at least one of susceptible (or prone) to, anticipated to be subjected to, and a combination thereof, to sun exposure, by a user via deployment of the system.)
Claim 1 has been further amended to recite: that the reference information is acquired from a doctor terminal operated by a doctor of a patient in need of treatment for a photosensitivity related symptom, acquire an environmental data from a patient terminal used by the patient in need of treatment for the photosensitivity related symptom, generate a provision information including an information for predicting appearance of the photosensitivity related symptom based on the reference information set and the environmental data, and transmit the provision information to at least one of the patient terminal and the doctor terminal.
Marinkovich discloses a system for gathering environmental and reference data, and providing a prediction of when photosensitivity symptoms (e.g. sunburn) will occur. Marinkovich does not expressly disclose receiving information from a physician from a doctor terminal operated by a doctor of a patient in need of treatment for a photosensitivity related symptom, from a patient terminal used by the patient in need of treatment for the photosensitivity related symptom or transmitting the provision information to at least one of the patient terminal and the doctor terminal.
Salorinne discloses a system which receives medical information from multiple users including from a healthcare provider (par. 8-9: the arrangement may inform a user of the conditions and/or the arrangement may inform a user of the possible repercussions of the conditions, which concern e.g. a future time instant and location as discussed herein. E.g., a prediction involving a health status or a symptom may be indicated; par. 12-14; the arrangement may be configured to receive data from an external system such as the one of a healthcare provider.; par. 76; par. 91-93- data from external system which includes a healthcare provider) and the patient (par. 7-9; par. 12-14; par. 76- may also be modified through first receiving health-related data and/or additional data from a user device 104, 112, and then comparing this data to health-related data and/or additional data received from another user device 104, 112 and/or data from one or more external sources such as a healthcare provider.; par. 90- data such as user data, specifically e.g. health-related data is obtained, being typically received at least from the at least one first user device 104, wherein the data is associated with a first time and a first location as well as naturally with the user of the at least one user device 104. For example, the data may be associated with the location of the first user device/first user at the time when the data is received. The health-related data may for instance indicate the occurrence of a symptom and possibly its severity)
Salorinne further discloses generating a provision information including an information for predicting appearance of the related symptom based on the reference information set and the environmental data, and transmit the provision information to at least one of the patient terminal and the doctor terminal. (par. 67-69; par. 72-78: transmitting a predictive notification regarding a patient experiencing symptoms or an imminent change in a patient’s health status to a first or second user device)
At the time of the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Marinkovich with the teaching of Salorinne receive relevant reference and environmental input from a treating healthcare provider and a patient to predict the occurrence of health symptoms (e.g. photosensitivity symptoms) and to transmit this prediction to a user or healthcare provider. As suggested by Salorinne, one would have been motivated to include these features to generate personalized predictive data including e.g. proactive notifications, which provide more effective predictions and to allow person to be aware of e.g. environmental conditions that may influence his/her condition in order to prepare for or prevent exacerbations. (See par. 3 and 13)
Claim 2 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the provision information is an information for prompting that prompts a light blocking. (par.104-105)
Claim 3 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the provision information is, calculated from the reference information set, the information related to an estimation sunshine duration until appearing the photosensitivity related symptom. (fig. 4-5;par. Par. 169-174: a second Two-Dimensional (2-D) coordinate system representation of increase in redness versus time in connection with redness tracking during the day, i.e. intraday redness tracking, thereby resulting in indication of the allowable (or recommended) length of sun exposure (or the sun exposure duration), according to one or more embodiments (par. 172))
Claim 4 Marinkovich teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is configured to generate the information related to a remaining time of the estimated sunshine duration and notify the remaining time of the estimation sunshine duration to the terminal. (par. 176- upon determining baseline information, the sun exposure management device may automatically synchronize with the host computing subsystem thereby facilitating synchronization of one or more data, for instance the benchmark settings, thresholds, alerts and frequency table, therebetween. In some embodiments, the sun exposure management device may facilitate algorithmic processing thereby facilitating independent use of the same; par. 177- The sun exposure management device may be preset to scan everytime the user activates. In some scenarios, in the event that the redness level is above a threshold, the user may receive from the sun exposure management device a color coded response, for instance in at least one of green, yellow and red, based on the redness level relative to the threshold. In some scenarios, in the event that the user may be at least one of under high risk of burning and actually burning, the sun exposure management device may also vibrate.)
Claim 5 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the environmental data includes at least one data selected from a solar radiation data, a sunlight wavelength data, and a weather information. (par. 30-radiation data detected- a skin care device may include an electromagnetic radiation source capable of directing incident electromagnetic radiation to a location on the skin of a user, a radiation detector for measuring various parameters of radiation re-emitted from the location, and a skin condition analysis module coupled to the detector, the analysis module capable of generating a skin condition assessment in real-time, based partly on at least one of RGB analysis and diffused reflectance analysis of the radiation parameters)
Claim 6 Marinkovich teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one reference information is acquired from a clinical trial information database. (par. 44- the device may be adapted to interact with a physical interface to download image data to update a record of at least one of a practitioner, a spa, a salon, cosmetic sales, a cosmetics manufacturer, a clinical trials database)
Claim 7 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the reference information set further includes a self-reported information of a patient in need of a treatment for the photosensitivity. (fig. 4-5;par. Par. 166, par. 169-174: a second Two-Dimensional (2-D) coordinate system representation of increase in redness versus time in connection with redness tracking during the day, i.e. intraday redness tracking, thereby resulting in indication of the allowable (or recommended) length of sun exposure (or the sun exposure duration), according to one or more embodiments (par. 172))
Claim 10 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the self-reported information is acquired from the terminal owned by the patient. (par. 131- the host computing subsystem 100B may be at least one of a portable computer, tablet computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), ultra mobile PC, Internet tablet, smartphone, carputer, pentop computer; see also par. 178)
Claim 11 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the reference information set is updated based on the self-reported information. (par. 71-72: self-reported information);
Claim 12 Marinkovich teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to provide the provision information to the terminal owned by the patient or a doctor terminal operable by a doctor. (par. 131- the host computing subsystem 100B may be at least one of a portable computer, tablet computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), ultra mobile PC, Internet tablet, smartphone, carputer, pentop computer; see also par. 178)
Claim 13 Marinkovich does not disclose, but Salorinne teaches the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry is configured to acquire an input information from the doctor terminal. (par. 12; par. 76- receiving health-related data and/or additional data from a user device 104, 112, and then comparing this data to health-related data and/or additional data received from another user device 104, 112 and/or data from one or more external sources such as a healthcare provider). At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Marinkovich with the teaching of Salorinne to incorporate information from a physician to provide treatments and recommendations which reflect a more comprehensive medical history of the patient, and to generate personalized predictive data including e.g. proactive notifications, which provide more effective predictions.
Claim 14 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to acquire at least one data selected from a solar radiation quantity, an intensity distribution of a light spectrum, and a going out time of the patient. (par. 30-radiation data detected- a skin care device may include an electromagnetic radiation source capable of directing incident electromagnetic radiation to a location on the skin of a user, a radiation detector for measuring various parameters of radiation re-emitted from the location, and a skin condition analysis module coupled to the detector, the analysis module capable of generating a skin condition assessment in real-time, based partly on at least one of RGB analysis and diffused reflectance analysis of the radiation parameters)
Claim 18 Marinkovich teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the provision information is calculated from the reference information set, the information related to an estimation sunshine duration until appearing the photosensitivity related symptom. (fig. 4-5;par. Par. 166, par. 169-174: a second Two-Dimensional (2-D) coordinate system representation of increase in redness versus time in connection with redness tracking during the day, i.e. intraday redness tracking, thereby resulting in indication of the allowable (or recommended) length of sun exposure (or the sun exposure duration), according to one or more embodiments (par. 172))
Claim 19 Marinkovich discloses the information processing device according to claim 18, wherein the circuitry is configured to generate the information related to a remaining time of the estimated sunshine duration and notify the remaining time of the estimation sunshine duration to the terminal. (par. 176- upon determining baseline information, the sun exposure management device may automatically synchronize with the host computing subsystem thereby facilitating synchronization of one or more data, for instance the benchmark settings, thresholds, alerts and frequency table, therebetween. In some embodiments, the sun exposure management device may facilitate algorithmic processing thereby facilitating independent use of the same; par. 177- The sun exposure management device may be preset to scan everytime the user activates. In some scenarios, in the event that the redness level is above a threshold, the user may receive from the sun exposure management device a color coded response, for instance in at least one of green, yellow and red, based on the redness level relative to the threshold. In some scenarios, in the event that the user may be at least one of under high risk of burning and actually burning, the sun exposure management device may also vibrate.)
Claim 20 Marinkovich teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the environmental data includes at least one data selected from a solar radiation data, a sunlight wavelength data, and a weather information. (par. 30-radiation data detected- a skin care device may include an electromagnetic radiation source capable of directing incident electromagnetic radiation to a location on the skin of a user, a radiation detector for measuring various parameters of radiation re-emitted from the location, and a skin condition analysis module coupled to the detector, the analysis module capable of generating a skin condition assessment in real-time, based partly on at least one of RGB analysis and diffused reflectance analysis of the radiation parameters)
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinkovich et al (US 20150313532 A1) and Salorinne (US 20200281518 A1) as applied to claims 1, and 15-17, and in further view of Rubin et al (US 20220028488 A1)
Claims 8-9 Marinkovich discloses an information processing device for patients seeking to treat or manage sun exposure and sun related illnesses. Marinkovich and Salorinne in combination do not expressly disclose, but Rubin teaches a system for patients in need of treatment for one of the following: a phototoxic dermatitis, a photoallergic dermatitis, pellagra, a porphyria, xeroderma pigmentosum, Cockayne syndrome, Bloom syndrome, albinism, phenylketonuria, hydroa vacciniforme, solar urticaria, polymorphic light eruption, and chronic photodermatitis (claim 8) and erythroblastic protoporphyria , X-linked porphyria, congenital erythropoietic porphyria, variegate porphyria, an acute intermittent porphyria, porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) (Claim 9) (Rubin:par. 34)
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Marinkovich and Salorinne in combination with the teaching of Rubin to provide treatment support for patients with various photosensitivity conditions. One would have been motivated to include this feature to provide personalized medical recommendations, prevent diseases and improve disease management for affected individuals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
In response, the examiner disagrees. The claimed invention remains drawn to an abstract idea (e.g. certain method of organizing human activities. The additional steps/claim limitations have been addressed in the updated rejection, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e).
(B) Applicant argues that the newly added claim limitations are not addressed by the prior art of record.
In response, the examiner has addressed the new claim limitations with new grounds of rejection, provided for applicant’s consideration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RACHEL L. PORTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684