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 (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 4, 11, 14, and 16 are cancelled, and claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/04/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Given the amendments to claims 1 and 15, reference to NEWREF is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 2 and 19 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-19 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.
For claims 1, 10, and 15, “assign an anthropological type to the user in accordance with the selected skin sample” is indefinite. It is unclear if “the selected skin sample” refers to the skin sample selected based on scattering intensity values, the skin sample selected based on skin thickness values, the skin sample selected based on the calculated overall melanin concentration value and the calculated melanin concentration ratio value, a combination of the skin samples selected, or something else. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner assumes the skin sample is selected based on scattering intensity values, skin thickness value, and the calculated overall melanin concentration value and the calculated melanin concentration ratio value.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are dependent of claim 1, claims 12-13 are dependent of claim 10, and claims 17-19 are dependent of claim 15, and therefore rejected under this 112(b) rejection as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the anthropological type is taken into account while determining physiological parameters of the user”, which is already recited in claim 15 as “determining physiological parameters of the user based in part on an anthropological type”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 9-10, 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Hani et al, " Determination of melanin types and relative concentrations: an observational study using a non-invasive inverse skin reflectance analysis", International Journal of Cosmetic Science, vol. 36, pp. 451-458, April 2014 in view of W. Huang et al, "High correlation between skin color based on CIELAB color space, epidermal melanocyte ratio, and melanocyte melanin content", PeerJ, pp. 1-17, Jan. 2018, Shim et al. (KR 20180027299 A, published March 14, 2018), and Breaux et al. (US 20190104989 A1, published April 11, 2019), hereinafter referred to as Hani, Huang, Shim, and Breaux, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 10 and 15, Hani teaches an apparatus comprising:
a spectral optical sensor configured to emit radiation on a skin of the user and obtain scattering intensity values for the radiation on the skin (see pg. 453, col. 2, para. 3 "The spectrophotometer [spectral optical sensor] is used to provide the spectral reflectance of pigmented lesion and the surrounding skin surface.");
a thickness sensor configured to obtain a thickness value of the skin (Fig. 4, spectrophotometer (also as thickness sensor) measuring spectral reflectance, where spectral reflectance is used to measure parameters including epidermal (skin) thickness);
memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the spectral optical sensor, the thickness sensor, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (see pg. 453, col. 2, para. 3 "The system comprises of a hand-held spectrophotometer and Graphic Processing Unit (GPU) workstation. The spectrophotometer is used to provide the spectral reflectance of pigmented lesion and the surrounding skin surface. The data are then analysed using an inverse Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, running on a GPU workstation based on works developed by Alerstam [17]."), cause the apparatus to:
calculate an overall melanin concentration value and a melanin concentration ratio value of the skin based on the obtained scattering intensity values and the obtained thickness value, wherein the melanin concentration ratio value is a concentration ratio of eumelanin and phaeomelanin (see pg. 456, col. 3 – “Table IV shows the statistics of eumelanin and pheomelanin [including ratio of eumelanin and phaeomelanin] of all participants determined by the pigmentation analysis system [which obtains scattering intensity and skin thickness values].”);
compare:
the obtained scattering intensity values with values of scattering intensity corresponding to a special skin tone from a database of simulated data, to select a set of skin samples corresponding to the special skin tone from the database of simulated data (Fig. 4, comparing simulated spectral reflectance and measured spectral reflectance; see pg. 453, col. 1, para. 2 "The acquired reflectance data of participants were stored in a database."; see pg. 453, col. 2, para. 3 "The data are then analysed using an inverse Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, running on a GPU workstation based on works developed by Alerstam [17]...Error is then calculated between the simulated reflectance and measured reflectance. The values of the variable parameters are changed, and spectral reflectance is simulated again using the changed parameters; this process is repeated until the error is minimized that is, reduced to a given threshold. To decide the change of parameters, an optimization technique is used."),
the obtained thickness value with data of skin thickness from the database of simulated data, to select one or more skin samples from the selected set of skin samples having the closest values with the obtained thickness value (Fig. 4, comparing parameters of simulated epidermal (skin) thickness and measured skin thickness), and
the calculated overall melanin concentration value and the calculated melanin concentration ratio value of the skin with data of an overall melanin concentration and a melanin concentration ratio from the database of simulated data, to select a skin sample from the selected one or more skin samples having the closest value with the calculated overall melanin concentration value and the calculated melanin concentration ratio value (Fig. 4, comparing parameters of simulated eumelanin concentration and pheomelanin concentration (overall and ratio) and measured eumelanin concentration and pheomelanin concentration).
Hani teaches obtaining intensity and skin thickness values in accordance with the selected skin sample, but does not explicitly teach assigning an anthropological type (skin color) based on the selected skin sample.
Whereas, Huang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches assigning an anthropological type to the user in accordance with the selected skin sample (see pg. 7, para. 1 "Given these results, an equation describing skin color relationship was generated: as L* = ax(M xR)+b (M: melanin concentration per 10n melanocytes; R: epidermal melanocyte ratio; a=-0.095; and b=55.872).").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified obtaining intensity and skin thickness values in accordance with the selected skin sample, as disclosed in Hani, by also assigning an anthropological type based on the selected skin sample, as disclosed in Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve precise skin color match in treating vitiligo or burn patients, as taught in Huang (see Abstract).
Hani in view of Huang teaches assigning skin color (anthropological type) to a skin sample, but does not explicitly teach determining muscle mass based on the assigned skin color.
Whereas, Shim, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a wearable apparatus (see pg. 5, para. 2 – “Referring to FIG. 1B, the health-band terminal 100 includes a body 101 having a display unit 151 and a band 102 connected to the body 101 and configured to be worn on the wrist.”); and
determining physiological parameters of the user based in part on an anthropological type, wherein the physiological parameters of the user include muscle mass (LBM), ratio of LBM to fat mass (determine muscle mass based on skin color; see pg. 19, para. 8 – “FIG. 15 is a flowchart for explaining a control method of applying different body fat algorithms [muscle mass, muscle-to-fat ratio] based on skin color [anthropological type].”; see pg. 20, para. 2-3 – “If the controller 180 determines that the skin is not black skin, the controller 180 calculates body composition information using a basic body fat algorithm. If the control unit 180 determines that the skin is black skin, the controller 180 calculates body composition information by applying a black skin-based body fat algorithm (S26).”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified assigning skin color (anthropological type) to a skin sample, as disclosed in Hani in view of Huang, by also determining muscle mass based on the assigned skin color, as disclosed in Shim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for more accurate body composition information to be obtained by applying various algorithms to distinguish races with different body characteristics, as taught in Shim (see pg. 20, para. 4).
Hani in view of Huang and Shim teaches assigning skin color (anthropological type) to a skin sample, but does not explicitly teach determining fluid loss based on the assigned skin color.
Whereas, Breaux, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches determine physiological parameters of the user based in part on an anthropological type, wherein the physiological parameters of the user include estimated fluid loss (determine fluid loss based on skin color; Fig. 1; see para. 0038 – “As such, relevant demographic data can include …Fitzpatrick skin type [skin color]…Thus, demographic data can aid in providing a more accurate overall hydration index analysis [fluid loss].”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified assigning skin color (anthropological type) to a skin sample, as disclosed in Hani in view of Huang and Shim, by also determining fluid loss based on the assigned skin color, as disclosed in Breaux. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a more accurate overall hydration index analysis, as taught in Breaux (see para. 0038).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Shim further teaches wherein the spectral optical sensor comprises light emitting diodes and photodetectors, wherein the light emitting diodes are configured to emit the radiation on the skin, and wherein the photodetectors are configured to obtain the scattering intensity values of the radiation from each of the light emitting diodes on the skin (see pg. 7, para. 2 – “2C, a pair of green light emitting devices 212b are disposed apart from each other around the light receiving sensor 211a, and the IR sensor 212c is disposed adjacent to one green light emitting device 212b . The light output from the IR sensor 2121c and the green light emitting element 212b is reflected by the user's body and is received by the light receiving sensor 212a. The light receiving sensor 212a can determine whether the health-band terminal 100 is worn by the amount of light received or acquire heartbeat information of the user.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 3, 13, and 18 Hani further teaches wherein comparison is based on a machine learning algorithm (see pg. 453, col. 2, para. 3 "The spectrophotometer is used to provide the spectral reflectance of pigmented lesion and the surrounding skin surface. The data are then analysed using an inverse Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, running on a GPU workstation based on works developed by Alerstam [17]." where Monte Carlo simulation is a machine learning algorithm).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Hani further teaches wherein the thickness sensor includes an optical sensor (Fig. 4, spectrophotometer (also as thickness sensor) measuring spectral reflectance, where spectral reflectance is used to measure parameters including epidermal (skin) thickness).
Furthermore, regarding claim 19, Shim teaches wherein the anthropological type (skin color) is taken into account while determining physiological parameters of the user (see 112(d) rejection above, limitation recited in independent claim 15; determine physiological parameters based on skin color; see pg. 19, para. 8 – “FIG. 15 is a flowchart for explaining a control method of applying different body fat algorithms [physiological parameters] based on skin color [anthropological type].”; see pg. 20, para. 2-3 – “If the controller 180 determines that the skin is not black skin, the controller 180 calculates body composition information using a basic body fat algorithm. If the control unit 180 determines that the skin is black skin, the controller 180 calculates body composition information by applying a black skin-based body fat algorithm (S26).”).
The motivation for claims 2 and 19 was shown previously in claim 1 and 15.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Cuccia et al, "A Light Emitting Diode (LED) Based Spatial Frequency Domain Imaging System for Optimization of Photodynamic Therapy of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: Quantitative Reflectance Imaging", Lasers Surg Med, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 207-215, 2013, hereinafter referred to as Cuccia.
Regarding claim 5, Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 2 above.
Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches LEDs, but does not explicitly teach where the LEDs are configured such that only one of the LEDs is emitted at a time.
Whereas, Cuccia, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the light emitting diodes are configured such that only one of the light emitting diodes is emitted at a time (see pg. 209, col. 1, para. 3 "In reflectance mode, each LED is serially triggered and directed to the DMD via a fiber bundle. A sinusoidal pattern is projected at three spatially off-set phases (0°, 120°, and 240°) for each spatial frequency. This cycle is repeated for each LED.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEDs, as disclosed in Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux, by having the LEDs configured such that only one of the LEDs is emitted at a time, as disclosed in Cuccia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide interrogation of tissue at discrete wavelength bands, as taught in Cuccia (see pg. 208, col. 2, para. 3).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Cuccia further teaches wherein the light emitting diodes comprises a red light emitting diode, a green light emitting diode, and an infrared light emitting diode (see pg. 208, col. 2, para. 3 "This instrument use five different LEDs, centered at 460 [blue], 525 [green], 630 [red], 730, and 850 [infrared] nm to provide interrogation of tissue at discrete wavelength bands...").
The motivation for claim 6 was shown previously in claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Youngquist et al. (US 20150230863 A1, published August 20, 2015), hereinafter referred to as Youngquist.
Regarding claim 7, Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches measuring skin thickness, but does not explicitly teach measuring skin thickness via a bioimpedance sensor.
Whereas, Youngquist, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the thickness sensor is a bioimpedance sensor (see para. 0177 "...skin thickness using electrical impedance spectroscopy [bioimpedance]...").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified measuring skin thickness, as disclosed in Hani in view of Saager and Huang, by measuring skin thickness via a bioimpedance sensor, as disclosed in Youngquist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calculate skin thickness non-invasively.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sayegh et al. (US 20150216477 A1, published August 6, 2015), hereinafter referred to as Sayegh.
Regarding claim 7, Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches measuring skin thickness, but does not explicitly teach measuring skin thickness via an ultrasonic sensor.
Whereas, Sayegh, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the thickness sensor is an ultrasonic sensor (see para. 0058 "Skin thickness of select portion(s) of the lower extremity of an individual can be determined by ultrasound scanning using real-time 20-MHz high-resolution ultrasound imaging.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified measuring skin thickness, as disclosed in Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux, by measuring skin thickness via an ultrasound sensor, as disclosed in Sayegh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calculate skin thickness non-invasively.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux, as applied to claim 10 and 15 above, and in further view of Hosoi (JP 2003339699 A, published December 2, 2003), hereinafter referred to as Hosoi.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 10 and 15 above.
Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux teaches measuring skin thickness, but does not explicitly teach measuring skin thickness based on height, weight, age, and sex of the user.
Whereas, Hosoi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the thickness value is obtained by using data of height, weight, age, and sex of the user (see pg. 4, para. 8-9 "Outside the case unit 1, input means 4 for inputting personal parameters (sex, age, height, weight), Display means 5 for displaying various output information such as input items and results (thickness of skin layer of body, amount of change in thickness of skin layer of body, body water content, body water deficiency rate, evaluation information) ").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified measuring skin thickness, as disclosed in Hani in view of Huang, Shim, and Breaux, by measuring skin thickness based on height, weight, age, and sex of the user, as disclosed in Hosoi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve estimation of body water content, as taught in Hosoi (see pg. 5, para. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Woo et al. (US 20220059209 A1, published February 24, 2022 with a priority date of December 4, 2019) discloses skin thickness information classified according to a Body Mass Index (BMI) in the biometric information and skin color information classified according to Fitzpatrick skin type in the biometric information.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
