DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the arguments presented to do not overcome the rejection because there remains insufficient detail as to how downy hair is identified using “image analysis” and “machine learning”. The Specification does not provide any information as to how a generically recited “image analysis” and “machine learning” methodology would be implemented in identifying downy hair. The claim further states that the determination is based upon “hair thickness, length, or density”. However, these are traits used to visually identify most if not any type of hair. What the image analysis does with this known and easily acquired information is not disclosed. With respect to this particular aspect of the claim language, one could perform such an image analysis with the eyes and mind. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is being maintained.
It is noted that the Applicant has stated that, “image-based hair identification was well known at the time of filing…The present application does not purport to claim a new image processing algorithm but instead applies known image analysis techniques to identify downy hair” (emphasis added). This is considered an admission of what is known in the prior art. Namely, it is well known that image processing algorithms are used to identify hair types. In the present claims, the Applicant claims to use a well-known technique specifically to identify downy hair, but the does not provide sufficient detail as to how the well-known technique performs this task. It is insufficient to state that downy hair traits are used in the image analysis to identify downy hair, because it is indeed necessary to know what one is looking for before you look for it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 12, the Specification does not describe the claimed, “analyzing, via a computer including a central processing unit (CPU), the image using at least one image analysis technique to identify downy hair”. It is unclear as to how the claimed system identifies hair as downy hair because the image analysis is generically claimed and described in the disclosure.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear as to what is considered “younger appearance” since the judging of appearance may be subjective.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canfield (US 2020/0383631, of record) in view of “Melanoma: is hair the root of the problem?” by A.M. Gomez Garcia et al. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 24(1): 110-118. Feb. 2011 (hereinafter as Gomez, of record) in view of “Differentiating melanoma and healthy tissues based on elasticity-specific Brillouin microspectroscopy” by M. Troyanova-Wood et al. Biomed Optics Express. Vol. 10, No. 4. (2019) (Troyanova).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 12, and 14, Canfield discloses a computer-implemented system and method comprising one or more processors, for evaluating cosmetic skin conditions (Abstract: “indicative of the condition of the hair”; skin conditions are considered cosmetic because they are visible), comprising: acquiring, via a camera, an image of skin ([0030]: “camera”), analyzing, via a computer including a central processing unit (CPU), the image using at least one image analysis technique ([0054], [0056]: “deep learning”), to identify downy hair based on hair thickness derived from the acquired image and determine an evaluated parameter associated with the downy hair, comparing the evaluated parameter to predetermined reference values stored in memory ([0064], [0065]: “vellus” - downy hair includes vellus hair, “hair width ranges” are predetermined reference values) to determine a skin condition and outputting results to a terminal ([0077]: “evaluate…disease” – in the simplest case of hair loss, follicular atrophy would constitute as a skin condition). Canfield does not explicitly disclose considering correlation data between downy hair and at least one of elasticity, sagging, or wrinkles, and outputting the condition of elasticity, sagging, or wrinkles for terminal display. However, Gomez considers a correlation between vellus hair and a risk of melanoma (p.1-4). Additionally, Troyanova teaches that the elasticity of melanoma tissue is different compared to healthy tissue (Fig. 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the correlation of Gomez and Troyanova to the analysis of Canfield, as to provide robust analysis of skin and hair.
Regarding claim 6, Canfield discloses that the evaluated parameter is determined from a thickness of downy hair ([0064], [0065]: “vellus” - downy hair includes vellus hair, “hair width ranges” are predetermined reference values).
Regarding claims 2-5, while Canfield does not explicitly disclose that the cosmetic skin condition is aging, elasticity, sagging, or wrinkling, Canfield does teach detecting the effects of aging ([0077]: “effects of aging). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the consideration of aging-related effects to the analysis of Canfield, as to provide robust detection of well-known skin conditions.
Regarding claim 16, Canfield does not explicitly disclose that the at least one image analysis technique comprises deep neural network based segmentation ([0054], [0056]: “deep learning”).
Regarding claim 17, Canfield does not explicitly disclose detecting a hair edge in the image, extracting, from the hair edge, a region corresponding to hair, performing feature analysis on the region to determine the at least one of hair thickness, length, or density, and classifying the hair in the region as downy hair based on the at least one of hair thickness, length, or density. However, the Applicant has admitted on p.7 of the Remarks dated March 13th, 2026 that edge detection is a well-known technique of hair identification. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a well-known technique to identifying downy hair, as to provide conventional and well-known tools to segment and distinguish different types of hair.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793