DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 01/16/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6, line 25: “emit light a third wavelength” should be changed to “emit light at a third wavelength”.
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 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1: “according claim 1” should be changed to “according to claim 1”.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 3-4: “with a different wavelength of light to a second reflectance characteristic” should be changed to “with a different wavelength of light than a second reflectance characteristic”.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1: “The device according to any claim 1” should be changed to “The device according to claim 1”. Please remove “any”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 includes the limitation “the machine learning agent having been trained using a corpus of training users”. The term “corpus” does not appear to have a specific definition given in the Applicant’s specification. It is noted that this term is being interpreted as referring to a large, structured set of texts used for training and evaluating AI models, which is the definition given by the website “FlowHunt”. Please see attached.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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. The limitation “a controller configured to: on the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics, determine a skin state associated with the user’s skin, and on the basis of the determined skin state, control one or more parameters of light emission by the light source” (Claim 1, lines 4-8; Claim 13, lines 4-7; Claim 14, lines 6-9) is not sufficiently described in the specification in such a way to comply with the written description requirement. Additionally, the limitation “the controller is configured to: determine a skin state associated with the first portion of the user’s skin; on the basis of the sensed one or more further characteristics, determine a further skin state associated with the further portion of the user’s skin; and control the one or more parameters on the basis of the skin state and the further skin state” (Claim 6, lines 7-11) also is not sufficiently described in the specification in such a way to comply with the written description requirement. Additionally, the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to control the one or more parameters on the basis of the output from a machine learning agent” (Claim 11, lines 2-3) also is not sufficiently described in the specification in such a way to comply with the written description requirement. The Applicant’s specification simply re-iterates these claim limitations (Par. [0073-0076] of printed publication – on the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics, determine a skin state associated with the user’s skin; on the basis of the determined skin state, control one or more parameters of light emission by the light source; Par. [0054], [0086], [0111] – machine learning agent). The Examiner is left with several questions that are not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. For instance, how does the controller determine a skin state associated with the user’s skin based on the sensed one or more characteristics? Further, how is the controller controlling one or more parameters of light emission by the light source based on the determined skin state? It is recognized that the Applicant’s specification explains at Par. [0073] of the printed publication that the determined skin state is associated with one or more of: skin age, skin moisture level, skin oil level, skin elasticity, skin fat content, skin protein content, skin oxygenation levels, skin topography, skin roughness, skin color, skin tone, and skin gloss. However, there is no sufficient algorithm, flowchart, or logic explained for how the controller determines a skin state based on the sensed characteristics. For instance, how does the controller determine the skin state based on a sensed skin moisture level? Does a certain skin moisture level indicate dry skin? Then, how exactly does the controller control parameters of light emission by the light source based on the determination of dry skin? Are there certain intensities, wavelengths, patterns, etc. of light that are used in response to determining a certain skin state? Additionally, it is recognized that the Applicant’s specification discloses that the controlling comprises operating a machine learning agent, the machine learning agent having been trained using a corpus of training users (Par. [0086] of the printed publication). It is also recognized that the Applicant’s specification discloses that the controller is configured to determine the one or more skin features by operating a classifier (i.e., classification algorithm) which may be a machine learning agent (Par. [0123]). However, there is no algorithm, flowchart, or logic explained for how the machine learning agent produces outputs or how the controller is configured to control the one or more parameters of light emission based on the output from the machine learning agent. For instance, does a controller determine certain parameters of light (e.g., intensity, wavelength, pattern, etc.) based on different outputs by the machine learning agent? These questions are not satisfactorily resolved by the Applicant’s specification. As explained in MPEP 2161.01, “Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”. MPEP 2161.01 also explains that “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation “a controller configured to: on the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics, determine a skin state associated with the user’s skin, and on the basis of the determined skin state, control one or more parameters of light emission by the light source” (Claim 1, lines 4-8; Claim 13, lines 4-7; Claim 14, lines 6-9) is not sufficiently described in the specification in such a way to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. Additionally, the limitation “the controller is configured to: determine a skin state associated with the first portion of the user’s skin; on the basis of the sensed one or more further characteristics, determine a further skin state associated with the further portion of the user’s skin; and control the one or more parameters on the basis of the skin state and the further skin state” (Claim 6, lines 7-11) also is not sufficiently described in the specification in such a way to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. Additionally, the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to control the one or more parameters on the basis of the output from a machine learning agent” (Claim 11, lines 2-3) also is not sufficiently described in the specification in such a way to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. The Wands factors detailed in MPEP 2164.01(a) have been considered. For example, (A) the breadth of the claims was considered. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations includes a controller being able to determine a general skin state of a user’s skin based on generic characteristics of a user’s skin, and to control general light emission parameters based on the determined skin state. It is noted that such a broadest reasonable interpretation covers a large range of characteristics of the user’s skin (e.g., dryness, skin age, skin color, skin tone, etc.), a wide range of skin states (e.g., sensitive skin, oily skin, healthy skin, aged/matured skin, hyperpigmented/uneven tone, etc.), and a wide ranges of controllable parameters of light emission (e.g., visible wavelength, infrared wavelength, ultraviolet wavelength, high intensity, low intensity, pulsed light, continuous light, etc.). This broad scope of the claims are not commensurate with the scope of enablement provided to one skill in the art by the Applicant’s specification. Also, (C) the state of the prior art was considered. The general state of the art at the time of filing of the invention irradiated different wavelengths of light to the skin for different functions. For instance, Bae, et al. (US 2022/0071491) teaches using red visible light to near-infrared light to expand blood vessels and promote blood circulation (Par. [0056]), along with using blue light to kill bacteria present on the skin (Par. [0060]). Also, (D) level of one of ordinary skill was considered. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that different wavelengths of light can provide different effects when irradiated to the skin, but one of ordinary skill in the art would be left with the tasks of determining how to correlate all sensed characteristics to all sensed skin states and to all different parameters of light emission. Also, (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor has been considered and (G) the existence of working examples has been considered. While the Applicant’s specification does mention that the determined skin state is associated with one or more of: skin age, skin moisture level, skin elasticity, etc. (Par. [0073] of printed publication), there are limited (if any) examples showing how a particular skin state is determined based on particular sensed characteristics, as well as limited (if any) examples showing how particular parameters of light emission are controlled based on the particular determined skin state. Also, (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure has been considered. In order to be enabling for the claim’s very broad scope of determining any skin state of the user’s skin and controlling any parameter of light emission based on the determined skin state, there would be an excessive amount of experimentation required. Therefore, claims 1-14 do not satisfy the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis of the determined skin state" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “light emission” in lines 7-8, whereas emit[ted] light was already introduced in claim 1 (line 3). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different light emission. Consider changing to “the light emission”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the visible spectrum" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the basis of the sensed one or more further characteristics" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
The limitation “the one or more parameters” renders claim 6 (line 11) indefinite. It is unclear what the limitation “the one or more parameters” is in reference to. Is this referring to the one or more parameters of light emission by the light source introduced in claim 1?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the basis of the skin state and the further skin state" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
The limitation “the skin state” renders claim 6 (line 11) indefinite. It is unclear whether “the skin state” refers to the skin state introduced in claim 1 or the skin state associated with the first portion introduced in claim 6 (line 8).
The limitation “the one or more parameters” renders claim 7 (line 2) indefinite. It is unclear what the limitation “the one or more parameters” is in reference to. Is this referring to the one or more parameters of light emission by the light source introduced in claim 1?
Claim 7 recites the limitation “light emission” in line 2, whereas light emission was already introduced in a claim that claim 7 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different light emission. Consider changing to “the light emission”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “light emission onto the first portion differs from light emission onto the second portion” renders claim 7 (lines 2-3) indefinite. It is unclear how the same light source is emitting different light on the first and second/further portion.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the user’s face" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the user’s: forehead, cheeks, chin, nose, and periocular area" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the user" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the basis of the output" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing to “based on an output”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the basis of the determined skin state" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “light emission” in lines 7-8, whereas emit[ted] light was already introduced in claim 13 (line 3). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different light emission. Consider changing to “the light emission”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the basis of the determined skin state" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider changing “on the basis of” to “based on”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “light emission” in lines 10-11, whereas emit[ted] light was already introduced in claim 14 (line 5). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different light emission. Consider changing to “the light emission”.
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed computer program does not fall into any of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as the court has found that a computer program per se is merely a series of mathematical calculations or mental steps and does not constitute a patentable process [Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72.; MPEP 2106.03]. Applicant should amend the claim to specify that the invention is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computerized device, cause the computerized device to perform a method of controlling a skincare device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/036119 – cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a skincare device (Title, Abstract – a light output device for caring for a skin of a user; Par. [0002]) comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 120; Fig. 4, # 120-121; Fig. 6) a sensor configured to sense one or more characteristics of a user's skin (Par. [0056] – the input unit 120 may include a camera; the camera may be treated as a sensor; Par. [0185-0186] – The camera 121 provided in the light output device 2 may capture the image of the user’s face. The camera may be disposed adjacent to the wearing detection sensor connector 235 shown in Fig. 6);
(Fig. 5, # 2 – light output device, 22; Fig. 7, # S705) a light source configured to emit light onto the user's skin (Par. [0194-0195] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 controls light output of the plurality of light sources disposed on the substrate 22 based on the inferred face state (S705));
(Fig. 1 and 4, # 180 – processor, i.e. controller) a controller (Par. [0073]; Par. [0184]) configured to:
(Fig. 7, # S703) on the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics, determine a skin state associated with the user's skin (Par. [0188] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 infers the face state of the user based on the acquired face image data and a skin care model), and
(Fig. 5, # 2 and 22; Fig. 7, # S705) on the basis of the determined skin state, control one or more parameters of light emission by the light source (Par. [0194] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 controls light output of the plurality of light sources disposed on the substrate 22 based on the inferred face state (S705)).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the device according claim 1, wherein (Fig. 4, # 121; Fig. 7, # S701) the one or more characteristics comprise reflectance characteristics (Par. [0184-0185] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 acquires face image data corresponding to the user’s face (S701). The camera 121 provided in the light output device 2 may capture the image of the user’s face (i.e., capturing reflectance characteristics)).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein:
(Fig. 4, # 121; Fig. 8, # S801; Fig. 9, # 900) the one or more characteristics comprise a plurality of reflectance characteristics; and
a first reflectance characteristic in the plurality is associated with a different wavelength of light to a second reflectance characteristic in the plurality (Par. [0201] – the first-type face image may be an RGB-type image (i.e., multiple reflectance characteristics/wavelengths) captured through camera 121; Par. [0210]).
Therefore, claim 3 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein (Fig. 4, # 121) the one or more parameters comprise one or more of: a wavelength, an intensity, and a duration of light emission (Par. [0201] – RGB-type image).
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein:
(Fig. 4, # 121; Fig. 8, # S803) the sensor is configured to sense one or more characteristics of a first portion of the user's skin;
the device comprises a further sensor configured to sense one or more further characteristics of a different further portion of the user's skin (Par. [0142] – may include a plurality of cameras; Par. [0204-0205] – plurality of main parts to acquire a plurality of first-type images (S803). The plurality of main parts may include a forehead, a nose, a jaw, and a left cheek); and
(Fig. 4, # 180) the controller is configured to:
(Fig. 8, # S807) determine a skin state associated with the first portion of the user's skin;
on the basis of the sensed one or more further characteristics, determine a further skin state associated with the further portion of the user's skin (Par. [0241] – the processor 180 outputs the skin state of each part using the plurality of second- and third-type partial images and the skin care model (S807)); and
control the one or more parameters on the basis of the skin state and the further skin state (Par. [0260-0261] – the values of the skin state variables may be used to determine the irradiation times and intensities of the plurality of light sources when the user wears the light output device 2; Par. [0267]).
Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the device according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to control the one or more parameters such that light emission onto the first portion differs from light emission onto the second portion (Par. [0178]; Par. [0261]; Par. [0267]).
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the device according to claim 6, wherein (Fig. 11, # 910, 920, 930, 940, 950; Fig. 15) the portion and the further portion are non-overlapping portions of the user's face (Par. [0215]; Par. [0304]).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein (Fig. 11, # 910, 920, 930, 940, 950; Fig. 15) the portion and the further portion each correspond to a different one of the user's: forehead, cheeks, chin, nose, and periocular area (Par. [0215]; Par. [0304]).
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters are associated with a phototherapy treatment being undertaken by the user (Abstract – control light output of the plurality of light sources based on the acquired skin state (i.e., phototherapy treatment); Par. [0005]; Par. [0010-0011]).
Therefore, claim 10 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the one or more parameters on the basis of the output from a machine learning agent, the machine learning agent having been trained using a corpus of training users (Abstract; Par. [0034-0035]; Par. [0191-0192] – the skin care model may be an artificial neural network based model learned by a deep learning or a machine learning algorithm).
Therefore, claim 11 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein (Fig. 6; Fig. 6, # 1660) the device comprises one of: a mirror, a lamp, and a handheld device (Par. [0318] – device shown to be handheld when skincare is finished 1660).
Therefore, claim 12 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a method of controlling a skincare device (Title, Abstract – a light output device for caring for a skin of a user; Par. [0002]), the method comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 120; Fig. 4, # 120-121; Fig. 6) sensing one or more characteristics of a user's skin (Par. [0056] – the input unit 120 may include a camera; the camera may be treated as a sensor; Par. [0185-0186] – The camera 121 provided in the light output device 2 may capture the image of the user’s face. The camera may be disposed adjacent to the wearing detection sensor connector 235 shown in Fig. 6);
(Fig. 5, # 2 – light output device, 22; Fig. 7, # S705) controlling a light source to emit light onto the user's skin (Par. [0194-0195] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 controls light output of the plurality of light sources disposed on the substrate 22 based on the inferred face state (S705));
(Fig. 7, # S703) on the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics, determining a skin state associated with the user's skin (Par. [0188] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 infers the face state of the user based on the acquired face image data and a skin care model), and
(Fig. 5, # 2 and 22; Fig. 7, # S705) on the basis of the determined skin state, controlling one or more parameters of light emission by the light source (Par. [0194] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 controls light output of the plurality of light sources disposed on the substrate 22 based on the inferred face state (S705)).
Therefore, claim 13 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches a computer program comprising a set of instructions, which, when executed by a computerised device, cause the computerised device to perform a method of controlling a skincare device (Title, Abstract – a light output device for caring for a skin of a user; Par. [0002]; Par. [0325]), the method comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 120; Fig. 4, # 120-121; Fig. 6) sensing one or more characteristics of a user's skin (Par. [0056] – the input unit 120 may include a camera; the camera may be treated as a sensor; Par. [0185-0186] – The camera 121 provided in the light output device 2 may capture the image of the user’s face. The camera may be disposed adjacent to the wearing detection sensor connector 235 shown in Fig. 6);
(Fig. 5, # 2 – light output device, 22; Fig. 7, # S705) controlling a light source to emit light onto the user's skin (Par. [0194-0195] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 controls light output of the plurality of light sources disposed on the substrate 22 based on the inferred face state (S705));
(Fig. 7, # S703) on the basis of the sensed one or more characteristics, determining a skin state associated with the user's skin (Par. [0188] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 infers the face state of the user based on the acquired face image data and a skin care model), and
(Fig. 5, # 2 and 22; Fig. 7, # S705) on the basis of the determined skin state, controlling one or more parameters of light emission by the light source (Par. [0194] – the processor 180 of the light output device 2 controls light output of the plurality of light sources disposed on the substrate 22 based on the inferred face state (S705)).
Therefore, claim 14 is unpatentable over Kim, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/036119 – cited on IDS) in view of Dijkstra, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0030359).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Kim does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 4, that is wherein the sensor is configured to sense the one or more characteristics in a frequency band outside of the visible spectrum.
Instead, Kim teaches that the camera is used to capture an RGB-type image (Par. [0201]) and then the processor converts the RGB images into IR images and UV images using an image conversion model (Par. [0217-0221]).
Diijkstra teaches a light therapy device for providing therapeutic treatment to a user’s body (Title, Abstract). Diijkstra teaches (Fig. 3, # 310, 320, 330, 340) using a camera to collect image data to perform analysis and identify a treatment result (Par. [0072-0075]). Diijkstra also teaches the limitation of instant claim 4, that is wherein (Fig. 1, # 121) the sensor is configured to sense the one or more characteristics in a frequency band outside of the visible spectrum (Par. [0065] – the camera 121 is selected from a group of a normal optical camera, a thermographic camera, an infrared spectroscopy camera, an IP camera, and a combination thereof).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented to have implemented Diijkstra’s infrared camera in place of Kim’s RGB camera because doing so would be an example of simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Kim desires using an IR image, but uses a process of converting the RGB image to obtain the IR image. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilization of an IR camera, like the one in Diijkstra’s device, could be used in place of Kim’s RGB camera in order to obtain the IR image (i.e., image outside the visible spectrum) directly.
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Kim, et al. and Diijkstra, et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ajiki (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0182758)
Bae, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0071491)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796