DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on June 4, 2026 for the application filed on May 24, 2024, which is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/KR2024/006997 filed on May 29, 2025, which claims the benefit of Indian Application No. IN2023/11076074 filed on November 7, 2023. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Priority
The certified copy of the foreign priority application was filed on June 27, 2024, and it is an English language Indian Application No. IN202311076074.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart in MPEP 2016(III).
Eligibility Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim as a whole falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106.03. In the instant application, claims 1 – 9 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 10 – 18 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and claims 19 – 20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (i.e., an article of manufacture).
While each one of claims 1 – 20 appears to fall within one or more statutory categories of invention, the Office has determined that the full eligibility analysis is required because there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself. The eligibility of each claim is not self-evident at least because each claim as a whole did not appear to clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. To the contrary, each claim as a whole appeared to merely apply one or more judicial exceptions on a computer.
Accordingly, it has been determined that each one of claims 1 – 20 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories under Step 1, and the Office proceeds with the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) as discussed below.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim is directed to one or more of the judicial exceptions (i.e., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1 – 20 are directed to judicial exceptions because claims 1 – 20 recite abstract ideas. (The Office will not determine that a claim is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One for the mere reason that claim further recites one or more additional elements beyond the judicial exception.)
The abstract idea exception includes three groupings: (i) mathematical concepts, (ii) certain methods of organizing human activities (“CMOHA”), and (iii) mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a). The CMOHA grouping includes three sub-groupings: (i) "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles," (ii) "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions"; and (iii) "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." See MPEP 2106.04(a). The sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The "mental processes" grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception including abstract ideas (i.e., mental process and/or CMOHA). Representative claim 10 recites the abstract ideas identified in bold as:
A system for predicting skin deteriorating condition of a user (mental process and/or CMOHA) using a wearable device connected to a mobile device of the user, the system comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs; and
one or more processors communicably coupled with the memory and comprising processing circuitry,
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
monitor, using the wearable device, skin attributes and environmental conditions associated with the user, (mental process and/or CMOHA)
determine, based on sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, a distance and an angle of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user, (mental process and/or CMOHA)
determine, based on the sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user, (mental process and/or CMOHA)
classify the identified hand movement of the user as a scratching signature by correlating the determined one or more parameters with corresponding reference parameters associated with one or more predefined scratching patterns, (mental process and/or CMOHA)
filter the classified scratching signature by removing false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface to obtain a filtered scratching signature corresponding to scratching on a skin surface, (mental process and/or CMOHA)
determine, using the wearable device, one or more filtered scratching characteristics associated with the scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the filtered scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern, (mental process and/or CMOHA)
determine a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information (mental process and/or CMOHA) stored in a database, and
generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user, wherein the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user. (mental process and/or CMOHA)
Mental Process:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite an abstract idea identified as the limitations in bold as “monitor, using the wearable device, skin attributes and environmental conditions associated with the user,” “determine, based on sensor-related data …, a distance and an angle of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user,” “determine, based on the sensor-related data …, one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user,” “classify the identified hand movement of the user as a scratching signature by correlating the determined one or more parameters with corresponding reference parameters associated with one or more predefined scratching patterns,” “filter the classified scratching signature by removing false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface to obtain a filtered scratching signature corresponding to scratching on a skin surface,” “determine … one or more filtered scratching characteristics associated with the scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the filtered scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern,” “determine a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information,” and “generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user.” These limitations may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Furthermore, the limitations in combination with computer components (i.e., the wearable device, the mobile device, memory storing one or more computer programs, one or more processors communicably coupled with the memory, etc.) still amount to an abstract idea because no distinction should be made between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in Claims 1, 10, and 19 themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with tools such as pen and paper. The limitation is directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform conventional computer processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Thus, this activity is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
CMOHA:
The limitations in bold above amount to an act of managing personal behavior (i.e., rules and instructions governing mental processes to be followed by a human). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, this limitation in combination with computer components (i.e., the wearable device, the mobile device, memory storing one or more computer programs, one or more processors communicably coupled with the memory, etc.) still amounts to an abstract idea because no distinction should be made between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans (i.e., as required by rules or instructions to manage personal behavior) and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, these activities are an abstract idea in the "CMOHA" grouping.
Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Dependent claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 are directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract idea exceptions) under Step 2A, Prong One of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Mental Process:
The limitation identified in bold as “the one or more scratching characteristics comprises at least one of an area of scratching, a frequency of scratching, and an intensity of scratching” in claims 2 and 11 define the step of determining the scratching characteristics and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. The limitation identified in bold as “the skin attributes comprise at least one of softness, a moisture level, and a dryness level of the user’s skin” in claims 3 and 12 define the step of generating the skin attributed-based personalized report and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. The limitation identified in bold as “the environmental conditions comprise at least one of a humidity level and a temperature associated with a surrounding of the user” in claims 4 and 13 define the step of monitoring environmental conditions and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. The limitation identified in bold as “the one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user comprises at least one of frequency, amplitude, motion, and jerks” in claims 5 and 14 define the step of determining parameters and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. The limitation identified in bold as “comparing the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device with corresponding predefined thresholds” and “upon determining that the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device is less than the corresponding predefined thresholds, classifying the identified hand movement of the user as the scratching signature” in claims 6 and 15 define the step of determining the distance and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. The limitation identified in bold as “the scratching signature comprises at least one of neck scratching, head scratching, face scratching, arm scratching, thigh scratching, leg scratching, and random scratching” in claims 7 and 16 define the step of classifying the identified hand movement as the scratching signature and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. The limitation identified in bold as “monitoring the identified hand movement for a predefined time duration,” “identifying one or more changes in the identified hand movement during the predefined time duration,” “correlating the identified one or more changes with the environmental conditions,” and “determining the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin based on the correlation” in claims 8 and 17 define the steps of identifying hand movement and determining the deteriorating skin condition and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. The limitation identified in bold as “generating, via at least one of the wearable device or the mobile device of the user, an alert based on the generated personalized report” in claims 9, 18, and 20 define the step of generating the alert and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 recite an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong Two.
CMOHA:
Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 recite limitations that amount to CMOHA. Regarding claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20, the above-identified limitations representing a mental process further represent acts of managing personal behavior, e.g., following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Thus, claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 recite an abstract idea in the "CMOHA" grouping.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exceptions. Representative claim 10 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as:
A system for predicting skin deteriorating condition of a user using a wearable device connected to a mobile device of the user, the system comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs; and
one or more processors communicably coupled with the memory,
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
monitor, using the wearable device, skin attributes and environmental conditions associated with the user,
determine, based on sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, a distance and an angle of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user,
determine, based on the sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user,
classify the identified hand movement of the user as a scratching signature by correlating the determined one or more parameters with corresponding reference parameters associated with one or more predefined scratching patterns,
filter the classified scratching signature by removing false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface to obtain a filtered scratching signature corresponding to scratching on a skin surface,
determine, using the wearable device, one or more filtered scratching characteristics associated with the filtered scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern,
determine a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information stored in a database, and
generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user, wherein the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), the claim as a whole does not amount to a particular treatment or prophylaxis. Thus, each one of the claims as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a), representative claim 1 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as “a system,” ” a wearable device,” ” a mobile device,” ”memory storing one or more computer programs,” ”one or more processors communicably coupled with the memory,” and ” a database.” These limitations do not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field.” It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Accordingly, each claim as a whole does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or field, but rather purports to improve only the abstract idea itself by applying the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, it is determined that the additional elements individually or in combination fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(b), the claims merely add generic computer components (i.e., system, wearable device, mobile device, memory, one or more computer programs, processors, database, etc.) to perform conventional computer functions. It is important to note that a general-purpose computer or generic computer components that apply a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions do not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(1). Thus, each one of the claims as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(f), each one of the additional limitations in bold above is determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. For instance, the claim recites monitoring, using the wearable device, skin attributes and environmental conditions associated with the user. This limitation is used to implement the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and is determined to be no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas (i.e., the CMOHA and mental process of monitoring skin attributes) on a generic computer component (i.e., the wearable device). Accordingly, for these additional reasons, claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), the additional limitations in bold as “generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user, wherein the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user” is determined to not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This extra-solution activity is a well-known post-solution activity of data outputting incidental to the primary process of determining a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin and thus is a merely nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, Claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), the additional limitations, individually or in combination, also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. In the instant application, the additional limitations of one or more processors, memory, the machine-learning model, and a data structure do no more than link or confine the abstract ideas (i.e., the mental process and/or CMOHA of determining a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin) to a particular technological environment, i.e., the wearable device and the mobile device). Thus, the additional limitations fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that each one of claims 1, 10, and 19 as a whole and the additional limitations, individually or in ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 present additional information in tandem with further details regarding elements from an associated one of independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 and are therefore directed to one or more abstract ideas for similar reasons as given Under Step 2A, Prong One above. Claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 – 20 further recite additional limitations, and these additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
The additional limitations identified in bold as “comparing the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device with corresponding predefined thresholds” and “upon determining that the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device is less than the corresponding predefined thresholds, classifying the identified hand movement of the user as the scratching signature” in claims 6 and 15 and “generating, via at least one of the wearable device or the mobile device of the user, an alert based on the generated personalized report” in claims 9, 18, and 20 do not represent a particular treatment or prophylaxis, do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself (i.e., or any other technology or technical field), include generic computer components that apply the abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions, are determined to be no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas (i.e., the CMOHA and mental process of generating a personalized report on skin condition of a user) on a generic computer components (i.e., the wearable device and the mobile device), and do no more than link or confine the abstract idea (i.e., the mental process and/or CMOHA identified above) to a particular technological environment, i.e., the wearable device and the mobile device. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), (f) and (h). Each one of claims 9, 18, and 20 as a whole, including the limitations identified in bold as “generating, via at least one of the wearable device or the mobile device of the user, an alert based on the generated personalized report” represents a well-known pre-solution activity of data outputting incidental to the primary process and thus is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that each one of claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 as a whole and the additional limitations, individually or in ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
Under step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f) and the than insignificant extra-solution activity of mere necessary data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Evidence that retrieving information is well-understood, routine and conventional is provided by MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements amounts to an inventive concept.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 are all encompassed by the abstract idea grouping of mental processes.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahadevan (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0233158 A1) in view of Douglas (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0245900 A1), Rogers (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0022609 A1), Chun (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0358259 A1), NPL Thappa, and Dobak (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0162682 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19, Mahadevan teaches the limitations of representative claim 10 identified in bold as:
A system for predicting skin deteriorating condition of a user using a wearable device connected to a mobile device of the user, the system (Abstract and Paragraph [0193] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a system for predicting skin deteriorating condition of a user using a wearable device connected to a mobile device of the user” reads on the operating environment 100 in Mahadevan (Abstract and Paragraph [0193]) using a smart watch and a mobile device to predict a user's itch and flare risk for a future time interval.), comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs (Paragraph [0186] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “memory storing one or more computer programs” reads on the storage 250 in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0186]) storing computer instructions (e.g., software program instructions, routines, or services).); and
one or more processors communicably coupled with the memory and comprising processing circuitry (Paragraphs [0074] and [0197] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more processors communicably coupled with the memory and comprising processing circuitry” reads on the processor in Mahadevan (Paragraphs [0074] and [0197]) executing instructions stored in a memory, including hardware logic components such as Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs).),
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively (Paragraph [0197] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively” reads on the processor in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0197]) executing instructions stored in memory (i.e., computer-usable instructions stored on computer storage media; a stand-alone application, a service or a hosted service (stand-alone or in combination with another hosted service), or a plug-in to another product).), cause the system to:
monitor, using the wearable device, skin attributes and environmental conditions associated with the user (Paragraphs [0050] and [0076] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “monitor, using the wearable device … and environmental conditions associated with the user” reads on the activity in Mahadevan (Paragraphs [0050] and [0076]) of determining atmospheric temperature and/or humidity levels at a location of the user.),
determine, based on sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, a distance and an angle of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user,
determine, based on the sensor-related data from the at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user (Paragraph [0205] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine … one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user” reads on the activities in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0205]) of extracting, from sensor data corresponding to a detected hand movement event, the frequency domain feature value and inputting the frequency domain feature value into one or more machine-learning classifiers, such as a random forest classifier, to determine whether or not the detected hand movement is likely a scratch event.)
classify the identified hand movement of the user as a scratching signature by correlating the determined one or more parameters with corresponding reference parameters associated with one or more predefined scratching patterns (Paragraph [0136] and [0205] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the determined one or more parameters” reads on the frequency domain feature value in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0205]) extracted from sensor data corresponding to a detected hand movement event and inputted into one or more machine learning classifiers. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “classify the identified hand movement of the user as a scratching signature by correlating the determined one or more parameters with corresponding reference parameters associated with one or more predefined scratching patterns” reads on the activity in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0136]) of considering a detected hand movement (i.e., via frequency domain feature value inputted into the scratch event classifier) as a scratch event if a “scratch event number” (outputted by the scratch event classifier) is above a scratch-event threshold (i.e., reference parameter associated with a predefined scratching pattern).),
filter the classified scratching signature by removing false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface to obtain a filtered scratching signature corresponding to scratching on a skin surface,
determine, using the wearable device, one or more scratching characteristics associated with the filtered scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the filtered scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern (Paragraphs [0062] and [0136] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “comparing a current waveform … within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern” reads on the sensor in Mahadevan (Paragraphs [0062] and [0136]) collecting raw sensor information and performing signal processing, forming variable decision statistics, cumulative summing, trending, wavelet processing, thresholding, computational processing of decision statistics, logical processing of decision statistics, pre-processing and/or signal condition, and the scratch event classifier determining a scratch event if the “scratch event number” is above a scratch-event threshold.),
determine a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information stored in a database, and
generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user (Paragraph [0039] [0198], [0300] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user” reads on the patient reported outcome (PRO) in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0039]) that is a qualitative and subjective report from a patient about the severity of pruritus.), wherein the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user.
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Douglas teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “a system for predicting skin deteriorating condition of a user using a wearable device connected to a mobile device of the user” (Paragraph [0260] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a wearable device connected to a mobile device of the user” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraph [0260]) of using a Bluetooth, WiFi, or similar connection to pair a device, such as a first motion sensor including one or more inertial measurement units, to a computing device.)
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Rogers teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “monitor, using the wearable device, skin attributes and environmental conditions associated with the user” (Paragraphs [0087], [0127], and [0195] of Rogers. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “skin attributes” reads on the skin softness (or elasticity), skin hydration measurements, and dryness in Rogers (Paragraphs [0087], [0127], and [0195]).)
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Douglas teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “determine, based on sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, a distance and an angle of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user” (Paragraphs [0057], [0067], [0073], [0266] and [0271] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device” reads on the acceleration and orientation data in Douglas (Paragraphs [0057], [0067], and [0073]) from the magnetometer, gyroscope, and/or accelerometer of the IMU of the sensor device. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine, based on sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, a distance … of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user” reads on the activities in Douglas (Paragraph [0271]) of carrying the computational device in a pocket near the waist of the user, pairing the motion sensor to the computational device via a Bluetooth connection, measuring the relative signal strength (i.e., sensor-related data) between the computational device and the motion sensor when the user’s hand approaches the user’s face, and correlating the signal strength to a distance. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine, based on sensor-related data from the wearable device, … an angle of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraph [0266]) of measuring positive rotation about the z-axis about a certain amount (i.e., an angle), which may correspond to a user rotating his or her wrist, which may be an initial movement as a user begins to move his or her hand toward his or her face.)
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Douglas teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “determine, based on the sensor-related data from the at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user” (Paragraphs [0057], [0067], and [0073] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the sensor-related data from the at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device” reads on the acceleration and orientation data in Douglas (Paragraphs [0057], [0067], and [0073]) from the magnetometer, gyroscope, and/or accelerometer of the IMU of the sensor device.)
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Chun teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “filter the classified scratching signature by removing false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface to obtain a filtered scratching signature corresponding to scratching on a skin surface” and “determine, using the wearable device, one or more scratching characteristics associated with the filtered scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the filtered scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern” (Paragraph [0140] of Chun. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “filter the classified scratching signature by removing false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface to obtain a filtered scratching signature corresponding to scratching on a skin surface” reads on the activity in Chun (Paragraph [0140]) of passing the data through low pass and high pass filters with cutoffs at 2 Hz, with the first type of signals representing the movement of the hand and can serve as the basis for detecting scratch events, but when used in isolation, without the second type of signals, producing false-positive results from hand waving, essential tremor and other sources of motions unrelated to scratching. The Office has determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing would have understood that the filter removes a portion of the data (i.e., false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface) to produce the combination of the first and second signals, with the first signals (i.e., filtered scratching signature of the user and corresponding to scratching on a skin surface) representing the movement of the hand and serving as the basis for detecting scratch events.).
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Douglas teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “determine, using the wearable device, one or more scratching characteristics associated with the scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern” (Paragraph [0296] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine, using the wearable device, one or more scratching characteristics associated with the scratching signature of the user” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraphs [0296]) of analyzing the post-alert target profile for motions indicating that the user scratches his or her face, such as a small and sustained deceleration as the hand approaches the face, and small accelerations as the user's hand moves around the face.)
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Douglas teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “determine a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information stored in a database” (Paragraphs [0246] and [0302] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraphs [0246] and [0302]) of comparing the face touch frequency to a threshold to determine a level of touching the user’s face (i.e., scratching, an important mechanism by which infectious diseases spread, etc.).)
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but NPL Thappa teaches the limitation as identified in bold as “determine a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information stored in a database” (Third Paragraph in First Column on Page 702 to Second Paragraph in Second Column on Page 702 of NPL Thappa. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information stored in a database” reads on the diagnosis in NPL Thappa of various common skin diseases associated with predefined scratching characteristics, including the diagnosis in NPL Thappa (Third Paragraph in First Column on Page 702 to Second Paragraph in Second Column on Page 702) of scabes associated with a papular rash infested on the face and scalp of infants.)
Mahadevan does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dobak teaches the limitation of claim 1 identified in bold as “generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user, wherein the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user” (Paragraph [0107] of Dobak. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user” reads on the report in Dobak (Paragraph [0107]) including a quantitative burden for a patient, where the quantitative burden comprises a probability that a subject may develop a skin disease based on the one or more mutations.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Mahadevan to implement system for predicting skin deteriorating condition of a user using a wearable device connected to a mobile device of the user, include the activity of determining, based on sensor-related data from at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, a distance and an angle of the wearable device with reference to a position of the mobile device to identify hand movement of the user, include the activity of determining, based on the sensor-related data from the at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user, include the activity of determining, using the wearable device, one or more scratching characteristics associated with the scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern, and include the activity of determining a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information stored in a database, as taught by Douglas (Paragraph [0057], [0067], [0073], [0246], [0260], [0262], [0266], [0271], [0285], [0296], and [0301] – [0302]) in order to account for and correlate different variables associated with an activity over time and highlight clinically relevant trends over time between different data profiles (Paragraphs [0044] and [0046] of Douglas); the activity of monitoring, using the wearable device, skin attributes and environmental conditions associated with the user, as taught by Rogers (Paragraphs [0087], [0127], and [0195]) in order to reliably measure various physical properties of skin, in a manner that does not limit a user's range of motion, lifestyle and that is not necessarily limited to a clinical setting (Paragraph [0005] of Rogers); include the activity of filter the classified scratching signature by removing false cases associated with the environmental conditions and scratching on a non-skin surface to obtain a filtered scratching signature corresponding to scratching on a skin surface” and “determine, using the wearable device, one or more scratching characteristics associated with the filtered scratching signature of the user by comparing a current waveform of the filtered scratching signature within a predefined time interval with a corresponding previous waveform pattern, as taught by Chun (Paragraph [0140]), in order to distinguish, for example, hand-waving from scratching and offer sufficient performance or practicality for routine use in clinical trials or patient care (Paragraph [0007] of Chun); include the activity of determining a level of scratching and a deteriorating condition of the user’s skin by comparing the one or more scratching characteristics with one or more predefined scratching characteristics and associated skin diseases information stored in a database, as taught by NPL Thappa (Third Paragraph in First Column on Page 702 to Second Paragraph in Second Column on Page 702) in order to recognize and treat the vast majority of complaints related to the skin (Second Paragraph in Second Column on Page 701 of NPL Thappa); and implement the activity of generating a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user, wherein the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user, as taught by Dobak (Paragraph [0107]) in order to provide non-invasive methods of assessing skin disease risk and providing early treatment interventions to prevent such diseases from manifesting (Paragraph [0004] of Dobak) .
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more scratching characteristics comprises at least one of an area of scratching, a frequency of scratching, and an intensity of scratching” (Paragraph [0296] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine, using the wearable device, one or more scratching characteristics associated with the scratching signature of the user” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraphs [0296]) of analyzing the post-alert target profile for motions indicating that the user scratches his or her face (i.e., area of scratching), such as a small and sustained deceleration as the hand approaches the face, and small accelerations as the user's hand moves around the face.).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the skin attributes comprise at least one of softness, a moisture level, and a dryness level of the user’s skin” (Paragraph [0087], [0127], and [0195] of Rogers. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the skin attributes comprise at least one of softness, a moisture level, and a dryness level of the user’s skin” reads on the skin softness (or elasticity), skin hydration measurements, and dryness in Rogers (Paragraphs [0087], [0127], and [0195]).).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the environmental conditions comprise at least one of a humidity level and a temperature associated with a surrounding of the user” (Paragraph [0050] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the environmental conditions comprise at least one of a humidity level and a temperature associated with a surrounding of the user” reads on the atmospheric temperature and/or humidity levels in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0050]) at a location of the user.).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user comprises at least one of frequency, amplitude, motion, and jerks” (Paragraph [0205] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the determined one or more parameters” reads on the activities in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0205]) of extracting, from sensor data corresponding to a detected hand movement event, the frequency domain feature value and inputting the frequency domain feature value into one or more machine-learning classifiers, such as a random forest classifier, to determine whether or not the detected hand movement is likely a scratch event.).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 teaches the limitation identified in bold as:
to classify the identified hand movement of the user as the scratching signature (Paragraphs [0136] and [0205] of Mahadevan as applied to claim 1), the one or more computer programs further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Paragraph [0197] of Mahadevan as applied to claim 1), cause the system to:
compare the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device with corresponding predefined thresholds (Paragraph [0277] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “compare the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device with corresponding predefined thresholds” reads on the activities in Douglas (Paragraph [0277]) of determining whether the measured vertical displacement exceeds the threshold of vertical displacement and determining whether a threshold rotation about the z-axis is exceeded.); and
upon determining that the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device is less than the corresponding predefined thresholds, classify the identified hand movement of the user as the scratching signature (Paragraph [0276] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the corresponding predefined threshold” for the distance of the wearable device reads on a threshold amount of vertical displacement (e.g., displacement about the z-axis) in Douglas (Paragraph [0276]), which may correspond to a user’s hand being vertically lifted toward a top end of the user’s face (e.g., to scratch a top end of the user’s face). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the corresponding predefined threshold” for the angle of the wearable device reads on threshold amount of rotation about the x-axis in Douglas (Paragraph [0276]), which may correspond to a user bending their elbow to raise their hand as part of the motion to move their hand toward a posterior or distal end of the user’s face (e.g., the edge of the user’s cheeks adjacent to the ears). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “upon determining that the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device is less than the corresponding predefined thresholds, classify the identified hand movement of the user as the scratching signature” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraph [0276]) of classifying the identified hand movement of the user as the scratching signature (i.e., the face scratching) upon determining that the determined distance and the angle of the wearable device is less than the corresponding predefined thresholds.).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the scratching signature comprises at least one of neck scratching, head scratching, face scratching, arm scratching, thigh scratching, leg scratching, and random scratching” (Paragraph [0276] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the corresponding predefined threshold” for the distance of the wearable device reads on a threshold amount of vertical displacement (e.g., displacement about the z-axis) in Douglas (Paragraph [0276]), which may correspond to a user’s hand being vertically lifted toward a top end of the user’s face (e.g., to scratch a top end of the user’s face). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the corresponding predefined threshold” for the angle of the wearable device reads on threshold amount of rotation about the x-axis in Douglas (Paragraph [0276]), which may correspond to a user bending their elbow to raise their hand as part of the motion to move their hand toward a posterior or distal end of the user’s face (e.g., the edge of the user’s cheeks adjacent to the ears). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the scratching signature comprises at least one of neck scratching, head scratching, face scratching, arm scratching, thigh scratching, leg scratching, and random scratching” reads on the face scratching in Douglas (Paragraph [0276]).).
Regarding claims 9, 18, and 20, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1, 10, and 19 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more computer programs further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to (Paragraphs [0197] of Mahadevan as applied to claim 1) generate, via at least one of the wearable device or the mobile device of the user, an alert based on the generated personalized report” (Paragraph [0048] of Mahadevan. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “generate, via at least one of the wearable device or the mobile device of the user, an alert based on the generated personalized report” reads on the activity in Mahadevan (Paragraph [0048]) of issuing an alert or a notification to a user via a user interface on a user device to notify the user of the scratch event(s).).
Claim 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10, and further in view of NPL Sargen.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 teaches the limitation identified in bold as:
to determine the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin, the one or more computer programs further include instructions (Third Paragraph in First Column on Page 702 to Second Paragraph in Second Column on Page 702 of NPL Thappa as applied to claim 1.) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to (Paragraphs [0197] of Mahadevan as applied to claim 1.):
monitor the identified hand movement for a predefined time duration (Paragraph [0302] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “monitor the identified hand movement for a predefined time duration” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraph [0302]) of recording a first number of times that the target motion occurs in a first period of time (e.g., the number of face touches occurring on a Monday) and recording a second number of times that a target motion occurs during a second period of time (e.g., the number of face touches occurring on a Tuesday), with Monday and Tuesday being a predefined time duration.);
identify one or more changes in the identified hand movement during the predefined time duration (Paragraph [0302] of Douglas. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “identify one or more changes in the identified hand movement during the predefined time duration” reads on the activity in Douglas (Paragraph [0302]) determining a change between the first number of times and the second number of times.);
correlate the identified one or more changes with the environmental conditions; and
determine the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin based on the correlation.
Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but NPL Sargen teaches the limitation identified in bold as “correlate the identified one or more changes with the environmental conditions” (Second Paragraph and Fourth Paragraph in First Column on Page 52 of NPL Sargen. In the instant application, the Office has determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that the correlation in NPL Sargen (Second Paragraph in First Column on Page 52 ) between a 15% increase in patients describing their eczema as poorly controlled with every 5 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature is directly proportional to an increase in in hand movement (i.e., scratching) during the predefined time duration. Similarly, the Office has determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that the correlation in NPL Sargen (Fourth Paragraph in First Column on Page 52) between a 10% increase in the odds of poorly controlled eczema with every 10% increase in humidity is directly proportional to an increase in in hand movement (i.e., scratching) during the predefined time duration.)
Mahadevan in view of Douglas, Rogers, Chun, NPL Thappa, and Dobak and as applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 10 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but NPL Sargen teaches the limitation of claim 1 identified in bold as “determine the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin based on the correlation” (Second Paragraph in First Column on Page 54 of NPL Sargen. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin based on the correlation” reads on the activity in NPL Sargen (Second Paragraph in First Column on Page 54) revealing that the geographic areas with increased temperature and humidity (i.e., the correlation between the changes in identified hand movement and environmental conditions, e.g., temperature and humidity) and were associated with poorly controlled disease.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Mahadevan as modified by Douglas and NPL Thappa to include the activity of correlating the identified one or more changes with the environmental conditions, and the activity of determining the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin based on the correlation, as taught by NPL Sargen (Second Paragraph and Fourth Paragraph in First Column on Page 52; and Second Paragraph in First Column on Page 54) in order to consider the effect of long-term weather patterns (temperature, humidity, and UVA/UVB sun exposure) on eczema severity (Second Paragraph in Second Column on Page 51 of NPL Sargen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Second Paragraph on Page 9 to Fifth Paragraph on Page 11 of the Amendment filed June 4, 2026) regarding the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
In the Amendment (Last Paragraph on Page 9 to Second Paragraph on Page 10), Applicant argued that the limitations of “determine, based on the sensor-related data from the at least one accelerometer sensor of the wearable device, one or more parameters associated with the identified hand movement of the user,” “classify the identified hand movement of the user as a scratching signature by correlating the determined one or more parameters with corresponding reference parameters associated with one or more predefined scratching patterns,” and “generate a personalized report on the skin condition based on at least one of the determined level of scratching, the deteriorating condition of the user's skin, the skin attributes, and the environmental conditions associated with the user, and wherein the personalized report includes a probability for presence of a skin disease in the user” recite “a signal refinement process that generates sensor data suitable for skin-condition analysis by removing false cases caused by environmental conditions and scratching performed on surfaces unrelated to the user's skin.” The Office respectfully disagrees because the Office did not rely on those limitations for disclosing the mental process. The limitations do not improve the signals or the functionality of wearable devices, rather the limitations are merely applying the abstract idea of determining the level of scratching and the deteriorating condition of the user’s skin (i.e., via the classifying step and the determining step) to wearable devices.
Applicant's arguments (Sixth Paragraph on Page 11 to Fourth Paragraph on Page 13 of the Amendment filed June 4, 2026) regarding the rejections of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT CAESAR ILAGAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00pm.
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, Jason B. Dunham, can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/V.C.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights