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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 9, 10A, 10B, and 11 are poor quality and blurred to the point that they are not able to be discerned appropriately. 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.
Specification
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
Claims 2 & 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 ‘vale’ in line 6 should read ‘value’.
Claim 5 ‘users/’ in line 6 should read ‘users.’
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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: ‘user device’, ‘providing… instructions’ & ‘providing… an indication’ in claim 1. 'user device' is interpreted to be a device configured to be operated by a user; the user device comprising one or more processors, a camera, and a display, per the specification (Para. [0105], [0112]).
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.
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 2 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.
Here, the claim recites the function of ‘training a machine learning data model to associate image features in the images of the other users with a user-input value in a scale indicative of a severity of facial wrinkles indicated in each respective image; and providing image data associated with the one or more images as input to the machine learning data model to generate an output vale in the scale indicative of the facial wrinkle characteristics of the user predicted by the machine learning model.’, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “machine learning data model” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this data model. For example, How many and what types of layers are there? How is the data propagated? What logics are programmed to help the machine learning algorithm make a decision? Is the training supervised or unsupervised? What are the weightings? Are other training concepts used such as regression? It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
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 1-17 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 ‘based on previously collected images of other users performing the one or more facial poses and further based on previously stored user data indicative of facial wrinkle characteristics of the other users, evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user’, it is unclear what ‘previously’ is relative to.
Claim 1 recites ‘previously stored user data’, the previously stored user data is used by the method but it is unclear where the previously stored user data is obtained from, rendering Claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 recites ‘based on previously collected images of other users performing the one or more facial poses and further based on previously stored user data indicative of facial wrinkle characteristics of the other users, evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user’, it is unclear whether previously stored user data is meant to be previously stored user data of the user or previously stored data of the other users, as previously stored user data of the user may be indicative of facial wrinkle characteristics of the other users (an image of the user taken a month ago may comprise or be indicative of facial wrinkle characteristics that are the same as other users) rendering Claim 1 indefinite.
The indefinite limitation is interpreted to mean ‘based on previously collected images of other users performing the one or more facial poses and further based on previously stored facial wrinkle characteristics of the other users, evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user ’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claims 2-17 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base 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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Each of Claims 1-17 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-17 recites at least one step or instruction for data gathering, making comparisons with data, making determinations based on data, and outputting data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-17 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically,
Claim 1, A method for facial wrinkle diagnosis, the method comprising: providing, at a user device, instructions indicative of one or more facial poses to be performed by a user (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)); obtaining, via a camera, one or more images of the user performing the one or more facial poses according to the instructions (Observation); based on previously collected images of other users performing the one or more facial poses and further based on previously stored user data indicative of facial wrinkle characteristics of the other users, evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user (Judgement); and providing, at the user device, an indication of the facial wrinkle characteristics of the user (Evaluation/Opinion).
Claim(s) are annotated with bolded text and underlined portions to show additional elements that are applying the abstract ideas and abstract ideas grouped as a mental process (Observation) (Judgement) (Evaluation/Opinion). (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
Further Claim 1 contains subject matter that involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG).
Further, dependent Claims 2-17 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 2-17 ) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a user device; a camera; and a machine learning data model are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., user device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-17 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a user device; a camera; and a machine learning data model as recited in independent claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims).
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, a user device (Para. [0105]-[0106]; [0112]); a camera (Para. [0112]); and a machine learning data model (Para. [027])
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term user device is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the user device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-17 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method of Claims 1-17 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-17 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-17 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-17 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-17 are not patent eligible and rejected 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160125228 A1 to Son et al. (hereinafter, Son) in view of “Computer-based Approach to Detect Wrinkles and Suggest Facial Fillers” to Alrabiah et al. (hereinafter, Alrabiah).
Regarding Claim 1, Son discloses a method for facial wrinkle diagnosis (Son: Para. [0088]), the method comprising:
providing, at a user device, instructions indicative of one or more facial poses to be performed by a user (Son: Para. [0227]-[0228], [0234], [0237], [0241]; Figs. 22-24; );
obtaining, via a camera, one or more images of the user performing the one or more facial poses according to the instructions (Son: Para. [0009]-[0010], [0012], [0228], [0246]; Fig. 20a-20c);
evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user (Son: Para. [0288]-[0290] )
providing, at the user device, an indication of the facial wrinkle characteristics of the user (Son: Para. [0301]-[0303]; Fig. 29)
Son is silent on the evaluation of facial wrinkle characteristics of the user being based on previously collected images of other users performing the one or more facial poses and further based on previously stored user data indicative of facial wrinkle characteristics of the other users.
However, Alrabiah teaches the evaluation of facial wrinkle characteristics of the user being based on previously collected images of other users performing the one or more facial poses and further based on previously stored user data indicative of facial wrinkle characteristics of the other users (Alrabiah: Pg. 321, IV. Experiments and Results, B. Dataset and Pre-Processing Details; Pg. 322, IV. Experiments and Results, C. Wrinkle Detection; Pg. 324, VI. Conclusion and Future Work; Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the facial analysis of Son to include the machine learning wrinkle analysis steps and comparing previous user data comparisons as taught by Alrabiah because Artificial intelligence databases can help in easily identifying whether there are similar cases that have been registered before, and then returns the diagnosis and treatment of these similar cases and to help in determining the need for filler injections (Alrabiah: Pg. 319, I. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 2, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 1, Son further discloses to generate an output vale in the scale indicative of the facial wrinkle characteristics of the user (Son: Para. [0301], [0306])
Son is silent on training a machine learning data model to associate image features in the images of the other users with a user-input value indicative of a severity of facial wrinkles indicated in each respective image; and providing image data associated with the one or more images as input to the machine learning data model to generate an output vale in the scale indicative of the facial wrinkle characteristics of the user predicted by the machine learning model.
However, Alrabiah teaches training a machine learning data model to associate image features in the images of the other users with a user-input value indicative of a severity of facial wrinkles indicated in each respective image (Alrabiah: Pg. 321, IV. Experiments and Results, A. Overview of the Proposed Methodology Framework); and
providing image data associated with the one or more images as input to the machine learning data model to generate an output vale in the scale indicative of the facial wrinkle characteristics of the user predicted by the machine learning model (Alrabiah: Pg. 321, IV. Experiments and Results, A. Overview of the Proposed Methodology Framework ‘… retrain an Inception model for the new categories (Wrinkles, No Wrinkles) to predict whether a face forehead has wrinkles or not.’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the facial analysis of Son to include the machine learning wrinkle analysis steps and comparing previous user data comparisons as taught by Alrabiah because Artificial intelligence databases can help in easily identifying whether there are similar cases that have been registered before, and then returns the diagnosis and treatment of these similar cases and to help in determining the need for filler injections (Alrabiah: Pg. 319, I. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 1, Son further discloses comprising: identifying a first image portion in the one or more images corresponding to a first facial region associated with a first type of facial wrinkles (Son: Para. [0281], [0052]); and
evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user with respect to the first facial region (Son: Para. [0301], [0303])
Son is silent on the evaluation relative to facial wrinkle characteristics within the other images of the other users.
However, Alrabiah teaches evaluation relative to facial wrinkle characteristics within the other images of the other users (Alrabiah: Pg. 321, IV. Experiments and Results, B. Dataset and Pre-Processing Details; Pg. 322, IV. Experiments and Results, C. Wrinkle Detection; Pg. 324, VI. Conclusion and Future Work; Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the facial analysis of Son to include the machine learning wrinkle analysis steps and comparing previous user data comparisons as taught by Alrabiah because Artificial intelligence databases can help in easily identifying whether there are similar cases that have been registered before, and then returns the diagnosis and treatment of these similar cases and to help in determining the need for filler injections (Alrabiah: Pg. 319, I. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 4, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son further discloses wherein identifying the first image portion comprises mapping the one or more images to a range of coordinates assigned to the first facial region in a face mesh model (Son: Para. [0281], [0292]-[0293]; Fig. 27).
Regarding Claim 5, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: identifying a second image portion in the one or more images corresponding to a second facial region associated with a second type of facial wrinkles (Son: Para. [0281], [0292]-[0293]; Fig. 27); and
evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user with respect to the second facial region (Son: Para. [0281], [0292]-[0293]; Fig. 27)
Son is silent on evaluating relative to facial wrinkle characteristics in the second facial region within the other images of the other users
However, Alrabiah teaches evaluating facial wrinkle characteristics of the user with respect to the second facial region relative to facial wrinkle characteristics in the second facial region within the other images of the other users (Alrabiah: Pg. 321, IV. Experiments and Results, B. Dataset and Pre-Processing Details; Pg. 322, IV. Experiments and Results, C. Wrinkle Detection; Pg. 324, VI. Conclusion and Future Work; Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the facial analysis of Son to include the machine learning wrinkle analysis steps and comparing previous user data comparisons as taught by Alrabiah because Artificial intelligence databases can help in easily identifying whether there are similar cases that have been registered before, and then returns the diagnosis and treatment of these similar cases and to help in determining the need for filler injections (Alrabiah: Pg. 319, I. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 17, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 1, Son further discloses comprising: generating a score indicative of a relative condition of facial wrinkles in the face of the user; and providing the score for display at the user device (Son: Para. [0295], [0301]).
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-13 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Alrabiah in further view of Lemperle et al. (hereinafter, Lemperle) (2001). A Classification of Facial Wrinkles. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 108. 1735-50; discussion 1751. 10.1097/00006534-200111000-00048..
Regarding Claim 6, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises glabellar frown lines (Lemperle: Fig. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Regarding Claim 7, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises crows feet lines (Lemperle: Fig. 5; Note: Periorbital wrinkles are commonly known as crow’s feet.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Regarding Claim 8, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises crows feet lines (Lemperle: Fig. 5; Note: Periorbital wrinkles are commonly known as crow’s feet.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Regarding Claim 9, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises forehead lines (Lemperle: Fig. 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Regarding Claim 11, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises nasolabial fold lines (Lemperle: Fig. 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Regarding Claim 12, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises marionette lines (Lemperle: Fig. 11).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Regarding Claim 13, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises lip mental crease lines (Lemperle: Fig. 12).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Regarding Claim 16, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Lemperle teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises neck lines (Lemperle: Fig. 13).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include a robust classification of wrinkles as taught by Lemperle in order to assess all potential wrinkles to objectively and thoroughly define all facial wrinkles (Lemperle: Pg. 1735, Terminology).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Alrabiah in further view of Peng et al. (hereinafter, Peng (2020), “Treating the tear trough-eye bag complex: Treatment targets, treatment selection, and injection algorithms with case studies”, https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.13622.
Regarding Claim 10, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Peng further discloses wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises under eye bag lines (Peng: Table 1; Fig. 1A & Fig. 1B).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include under eye bag lines as taught by Peng to expand on tear trough classification and treatment when complicated with eye bags (Peng: Pg. 2, section 2 | Treatment Targets: Etiologies of the Eye Bag ‘Before treatment of the eye bag and the tear trough, one must understand the underlying etiologies of these deformities, which can help physicians develop a rational, logical sequence of treatment with focused and appropriate correction targets.’).
Claim(s) 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Alrabiah in further view of Matika (2020), “Common Types of Facial Wrinkles (Rhytides)”, https://www.westlakedermatology.com/blog/common-types-of-facial-wrinkles/#:~:text=What%20are%20They?%20Mario.
Regarding Claim 14, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Matika teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises bunny lines (Matika: See Fig. ‘The Most Common Types of Wrinkles’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include bunny lines as taught by Matika to identify types of wrinkles to aid in treatment (Matika: ‘While wrinkles are an inevitable part of the aging process, many people find them to be cosmetically displeasing. If you’re wondering about options for treating your wrinkles, identifying which types of wrinkles you have is a good place to start.’).
Regarding Claim 15, Son in view of Alrabiah discloses the method of claim 3, Son in view of Alrabiah does not provide specifics on facial wrinkles in their analyses.
However, Matika teaches wherein the first type of facial wrinkles comprises tear trough lines (Matika: See Fig. ‘The Most Common Types of Wrinkles’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the wrinkle analysis of Son to include tear trough lines as taught by Matika to identify types of wrinkles to aid in treatment (Matika: ‘While wrinkles are an inevitable part of the aging process, many people find them to be cosmetically displeasing. If you’re wondering about options for treating your wrinkles, identifying which types of wrinkles you have is a good place to start.’).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791