DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 22 January 2026. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled, claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-9 have been amended, and claims 10-20 have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103; therefore, the Examiner places new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that independent claim 1 recites “the plurality of users being 200 or more”, where this is interpreted as being the number of users (see, e.g., Applicant ¶ 0037 as submitted, 0046 as published) – instead of the “200” indication possibly being an indication of some other qualification.
The Examiner notes that dependent claims 11, 16, and 20 each recite “the skin classifications includes performing clustering on the basis of expression levels of a related gene of a first certain function and a related gene of a second certain function”. This is being interpreted as merely clustering based on expression level. There is no explanation regarding determining if or when genes are “related”, or what the function of a gene may be, much less a “certain function”. The best or most support and explanation appears to be Applicant Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 0039-0042 (as submitted, 0048-0051 as published). It appears that by definition ALL genes from one person (regardless of expression level) are “related”, and a function or certain function is merely saying that the gene appears to do something, not that the particular function or activity is known or determined. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that genes have a function (i.e., a certain function), that genes are related (since from a user), and the actual activity being performed is merely the “clustering on the basis of expression levels”.
The Examiner notes that independent claims 1, 8, and 9 recite “wherein the treatment cosmetic information candidates objectively correspond to concerns and/or interests of the skin of said one user based on objective data in the form of the generated skin classification corresponding to the skin classification used as the search criterion.” The Examiner notes that the skin of a user is not a separate sentient being that itself has “concerns and/or interests”. Further, the generated skin classification is only as objective as biological information that is received and the analysis that is then performed. As explained above, the reasonable breadth of the claims encompasses to receive “biological information” in the form of an image or picture, perhaps along with information such as how dry the user’s skin is or feels. These include subjective data and analysis; therefore, the generated skin classification is “objective” only in the sense that there is an analysis result provided, such as a general indication of a skin type – see, e.g., Fig. 6, which is apparently then used, such as at Figs. 9A-9C to provide a recommendation.
As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase is that any recommended candidate objectively corresponds to the user’s concerns or interests since based on the generated skin classification.
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 10, 15, and 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.
Dependent claims 10, 15, and 19 recite that “skin classifications”, or “generated skin classifications”, are “based on 1000 or more and 20000 or less pieces of RNA information”, where 1) it appears indefinite what pieces of information are being referred to, and 2) there appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for requiring any RNA pieces of information.
The Examiner notes that independent claims 1, 8, and 9 recite generating a skin classification based on biological information provided from a plurality of users. The specification indicates that the biological information may be RNA (see, e.g., Applicant ¶ 0016 as submitted, 0026 as published), but also that other information may be analyzed as biological information, such as “skin color, unevenness, stains, or the like may be analyzed from image information obtained by imaging the user's skin, and a skin classification may be generated in accordance therewith” (Applicant ¶ 0062 as submitted, 0071 as published).
However, Applicant ¶ 0041 (as submitted, 0050 as published) indicates that “For example, RNA (gene) may be selected on the basis of the skin property items that suit various skin concerns such as age spots and wrinkles”. This appears to indicate that when someone submits or indicates a skin property, such as age spots or wrinkles, this information is used to look up the RNA, or gene information (as per the listing(s) at Fig. 5).
The parent independent claims do not require RNA information as the biological information, such as genetic test results or physical samples on which RNA or genetic testing could be performed. Since it appears that only a skin property need be submitted, and this indicates or determines the RNA or gene, the Examiner is wholly uncertain what 1,000-20,000 pieces of information are being required. This could mean that there are 1,000-20,000 pieces of information required to set up a lookup table such as shown at Fig. 5. Or this could mean that actual physical samples are required and only after 1,000-20,000 are received would the system operate.
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, 3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system (claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10-12), method (claims 8 and 13-16), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 9 and 17-20), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites an information processing system that provides information regarding a skin condition comprising: a controller that analyzes pieces of biological information regarding skin of each of a plurality of users provided from the plurality of users, the plurality of users being 200 or more, generates a plurality of skin classifications for classifying the skin of the plurality of users based on an analysis result regarding the pieces of biological information provided by the plurality of users, receives user attribute information for identifying each of the plurality of users as a source of the biological information in association with a corresponding one of the generated plurality of skin classifications, wherein for each of the users the user attribute information includes information regarding the user's skin quality and/or skin problem perceived or understood by the user, receives evaluation information from at least some of plurality of users regarding prior use of different treatment cosmetics, provides one of the generated skin classifications to a corresponding one of the plurality of users, after providing the generated skin classification to said one user, receives, from a user terminal of said one user, a request for treatment cosmetic information using the provided skin classification as a search criterion, and in response to the request for treatment cosmetic information corresponding to the provided skin classification as the search criterion, determines a plurality of treatment cosmetic information candidates based on attribute information for said one user and the received evaluation information from one or more other of the plurality of users having a same skin classification as said one user, and electronically transmits the treatment cosmetic information candidates to the user terminal for output on a display of the user terminal, wherein the treatment cosmetic information candidates objectively correspond to concerns and/or interests of the skin of said one user based on objective data in the form of the generated skin classification corresponding to the skin classification used as the search criterion.
See the notes below regarding the consideration of the plurality of users being 200 or more, which can be considered as included with, or part of, the abstract idea but is also being considered as potentially being additional to the abstract idea itself.
Independent claims 8 and 9 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 1 since claim 8 is directed to a method performing the same or similar activities as at claim 1 and claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method performing the same or similar activities as at claim 1.
The dependent claims (claims 3, 5-7, and 10-20) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate search page access information (claims 3, 14, and 19), receiving, storing, and transmitting evaluation and/or attribute information (claim 5), transmitting re-provision proposal information after a time period lapse, storing analysis information, and generating and transmitting time-series information (claim 6), generating three or more skin classifications (claims 7, 13, and 17), using 1,000 to 20,000 pieces of RNA information (claims 10, 15, and 19), the skin classification being based on clustering of expression levels of related genes with different functions (claims 11, 16, and 20), and/or the skin classification includes different combinations of a plurality of skin property items (claim 12).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of analyzing, storing, and providing skin and skin product information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) based on providing the product information based on the stored and requested information; and
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) since the product information may be provided based on the observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of another person using just their mind and/or pen/pencil and paper.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are the use of a system comprising: a controller and a user terminal, the user terminal including a display, the plurality of users being 200 or more, and receiving and transmitting to/from the user terminal, such as output for display on the user terminal (at claim 1 and 8) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform the activities (at claim 9). The Examiner notes that whether the plurality of users being 200 or more would appear to be able to be considered as part of the abstract idea – as indicated above – since a person manually performing the analysis indicated could also consider a 200 person cutoff requirement.
These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The recitation of the plurality of users being 200 or more appears to be a relatively random or subjective, arbitrary choice – the only supporting mention is at Applicant ¶ 0037 (as submitted, 0046 as published), but there is no reasoning or justification regarding why the number may be required to be 200 (as opposed to 500 or 1000 – as at the same mention). There is no apparent reason as to why 199 persons submitting sample information would be inadequate or improper, but 200 or more would (for some reason) be deemed adequate or proper. This appears to NOT be a matter related to statistical significance since the same description mention indicates that the number could also be (apparently arbitrarily) set at 2.5-times or 5-times that “200” number (i.e., 500 or 1000 persons).
The Examiner further notes with respect to dependent claims 11, 16, and 20 indicating different functions (“related gene of a first certain function and a related gene of a second certain function”) that there is no explanation or description related to what the function of genes may be, how they may be “related”. There is only one mention of this concept in the specification, Applicant ¶ 0042 (as submitted, 0051 as published), but without any explanation – just that a “certain function”, such as “function X” and/or “function Y”, are somehow present. There is also no indication of what “related” would mean – whether this is merely providing the gene information somehow (e.g., in the sense that telling a story is “relating” that story), or whether this is indicating the genes are somehow related to one another (e.g., the genes are related in that they both are from the same person, or somehow have similar “functions”). Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted this as being common knowledge that can or would be considered by a person performing the analysis or clustering and therefore as part of the abstract idea itself.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. Applicant ¶ 0074 (as submitted, 0083 as published) appears to be the only or best description of the components envisioned for use, but merely indicate a generic or general-purpose computer or components – “[t]he hardware may be any hardware disclosed in the embodiment of the present invention or any hardware programmed to realize the described functions or known to execute the described functions”.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0265244) in view of Banet et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0018422, hereinafter Banet) in further view of Maclellan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0051409, hereinafter Maclellan) .
Claim 1: Baumann discloses an information processing system that provides information regarding a skin condition, comprising:
a controller that analyzes pieces of biological information regarding skin of each of a plurality of users provided from the plurality of users (see Baumann at least at, e.g., ¶ 0011, “a computer-based or network system, … performed via a terminal or computer or through an access to an online network”; citation hereafter by number only),
generates a plurality of skin classifications for classifying the skin of the plurality of users based on an analysis result regarding the pieces of biological information provided by the plurality of users (Baumann at ¶ 0023, “the invention comprises a method of assigning one of sixteen skin types to a potential skin care customer or personal care product user that comprises scoring the skin or a portion of the skin of the customer or user for at least four factors: 1) the degree of oily or dry skin present; 2) the degree of sensitive or resistant skin present; 3) the degree of pigmented or non-pigmented skin present; and 4) the degree of wrinkled or tight skin present”) ,
receives user attribute information for identifying each of the plurality of users as a source of the biological information in association with a corresponding one of the generated plurality of skin classifications, wherein for each of the users the user attribute information includes information regarding the user's skin quality and/or skin problem perceived or understood by the user (0016, “the invention can incorporate a patient or user (patient/customer) information collection step or process, where a user can save identifying information or a username to be retrieved or used later”, 0017, “a user ID for each individual customer or user, associate a user ID with that individual's skin or hair type”, 0022, “the invention provides a solution to the problem of selecting, recommending, or categorizing skin or hair care products so that professionals, patients or consumers can more accurately or more appropriately select or make recommendations on products that will improve hair or skin. By assigning a skin type or hair type, especially the skin or hair types of FIGS. 2 or 3, products can be matched to an individual's skin or hair in ways that prevent undesirable effects and/or improve various conditions in the skin or hair”, 0026, “One of skill in the art of online marketing and web-based sales is familiar with the user or customer ID options to associate a particular user with the information entered by that user, thus linking a satisfied user of a product to a particular skin or hair type”),
receives evaluation information from at least some of plurality of users regarding prior use of different treatment cosmetics (0013, “for example, the record or datapoint for each product or treatment associated with a particular skin or hair type can also store information (or be linked to information or comments) for the user or queries to the user to further define the product, the user, or the skin type. Thus, in a general aspect, the invention allows an interactive computer-based or network system for determining a user's skin or hair type or the particular product or products to be recommended for that user”, 0015, “the questions or queries can be a flow chart or set of questions or even an interactive set of questions, where a response to a question is followed by one or more questions to refine the answer or input for a particular factor or parameter. In addition, the input or answers to a question, set or questions, or a query as from an interactive network is the value from one of the analytical methods, available scaling systems, or techniques noted above, for example the Glogau photoaging scale”, 0016, “a user can save identifying information or a username to be retrieved or used later. The patient/customer information can include basic demographic queries and/or responses as well as prior user sessions and/or recommendations”, 0017, “associated a user ID for each individual customer or user, associate a user ID with that individual's skin or hair type, and store "Preferences" information on products or treatments that the particular user or the skin or hair type associated with that user finds appropriate or desirable”)
receives, from a user terminal of said one user, a request for treatment cosmetic information using the provided skin classification as a search criterion (0011, “a patient or user input in each of four parameters or factors, for example, gives rise to one or more recommendations in skin or personal care products”, 0015, “a questionnaire or series of questions can form the user or patient input in the method, … the questionnaire can essentially be a series of questions…. the questions or queries can be a flow chart or set of questions or even an interactive set of questions, where a response to a question is followed by one or more questions to refine the answer or input for a particular factor or parameter. In addition, the input or answers to a question, set or questions, or a query as from an interactive network is the value from one of the analytical methods, available scaling systems, or techniques noted above, for example the Glogau photoaging scale”), and
in response to the request for treatment cosmetic information corresponding to the provided skin classification as the search criterion, determines a plurality of treatment cosmetic information candidates based on attribute information for said one user and the received evaluation information from one or more other of the plurality of users having a same skin classification as said one user, and electronically transmits the treatment cosmetic information to the user terminal for output on a display of the user terminal (0017, “the output can be sent to a printer or screen for display by a potential customer or user”, 0022, “the invention provides a solution to the problem of selecting, recommending, or categorizing skin or hair care products so that professionals, patients or consumers can more accurately or more appropriately select or make recommendations on products that will improve hair or skin. By assigning a skin type or hair type, especially the skin or hair types of FIGS. 2 or 3, products can be matched to an individual's skin or hair in ways that prevent undesirable effects and/or improve various conditions in the skin or hair”),
wherein the treatment cosmetic information candidates objectively correspond to concerns and/or interests of the skin of said one user based on objective data in the form of the generated skin classification corresponding to the skin classification used as the search criterion (0009, “the score is compared to information on a group of skin care, hair care, or personal care products, which information can be stored in electronic form, in a database, in a printed publication, in a chart, or in other medium”, 0012, “the collection or database of product and ingredient information can be stored electronically on the computer-based system or network and accessed to provide output in recommending a personal care product or treatment regimen”).
Baumann, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose the plurality of users being 200 or more, provides one of the generated skin classifications to a corresponding one of the plurality of users, and after providing the generated skin classification to said one user [receiving a request for information]. Banet, though, teaches providing information based on health or medical analysis (Banet at 0030, “a system featuring a body sensor and monitor that performs a PTT-based blood pressure measurement, corrected for VI, on a patient”), where “Data for the graph were determined by measuring 200 patients” and values such as slope and y-intercept for the graph “are determined from a statistically significant number of patients” (Banet at 0044). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to use a 200 person sampling is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to base the provided results on the plurality of users being 200 or more in order to determine the information based on a statistically significant number of patients.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the recommendations of Baumann with the number of users of Banet in order to use a 200 person sampling in order to determine the information based on a statistically significant number of patients.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to use a 200 person sampling is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to base the provided results on the plurality of users being 200 or more in order to determine the information based on a statistically significant number of patients as explained above.
Baumann in view of Banet, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose providing one of the generated skin classifications to a corresponding one of the plurality of users, and after providing the generated skin classification to said one user receive the request for information. But it does not appear clear from the specification what the distinction is between the received attributes and the skin characteristics. Applicant ¶ 0029 (as submitted, 0038 as published) indicates that “It is favorable that the attribute information regarding a user can be selected from a plurality of options. For example, in the case of skin quality, the attribute information may be selected from a plurality of viewpoints such as the level of sensitive skin and skin color in addition to the classifications of dry skin and oily skin”. The “classifications of dry skin and oily skin” appear to literally be among the information the user has submitted as attributes (the claims indicating that the system receives that attribute information). As such, the providing back of such a skin classification (when the user originally provided it) appears to be “make work” of little if any utility. However, in order to attempt to grant as much credit as possible to the limitation, the Examiner notes that Maclellan, though, teaches “determining a skin color classification for a user…. A user can provide images of healthy regions of their skin, for example by taking pictures using a camera of a smartphone. The user can also provide additional information, in the form of medical records, biometric information, or other information relating the color or tone of the skin of the user. This information can be collected by an application executing on a computing device of the user. Using the images and provided information, this technical solution can utilize a trained skin color classification model to output a value, such as a Fitzpatrick skin score, that is representative of the skin color of the user” (Maclellan at 0005), and “providing the skin characteristic can include storing the skin characteristic in a medical data record associated with the user. In some implementations, the method can include identifying, based on the image and the skin characteristic, a treatment option to treat a skin disease corresponding to the skin characteristic. In some implementations, the method can include transmitting the treatment option to the computing device of the user” (Maclellan at 0017). The Examiner notes that Maclellan is interpreted as providing the skin characteristic to the user and saving it in the medical record so that, afterward, the skin characteristic can be considered when the user requests a skin treatment option. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to provide a skin classification and receive treatment information afterward is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to be able to consider the stored skin classification when providing a treatment option.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the recommendations of Baumann in view of Banet with the sequencing of providing a skin characteristic and afterward requesting a treatment as in Maclellan in order to be able to consider the stored skin classification when providing a treatment option.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to provide a skin classification and receive treatment information afterward is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to be able to consider the stored skin classification when providing a treatment option as explained above.
Claim 3: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller transmits, to the user terminal of the user of the source of the biological information, access information for accessing a search page where the search request can be input as well as the classification information (Baumann at 0015, “a questionnaire or series of questions can form the user or patient input in the method, … the questionnaire can essentially be a series of questions…. the questions or queries can be a flow chart or set of questions or even an interactive set of questions, where a response to a question is followed by one or more questions to refine the answer or input for a particular factor or parameter. In addition, the input or answers to a question, set or questions, or a query as from an interactive network is the value from one of the analytical methods, available scaling systems, or techniques noted above, for example the Glogau photoaging scale”, 0017, “a user ID for each individual customer or user, associate a user ID with that individual's skin or hair type”).
Claim 5: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller, stores the user attribute information in association with the evaluation information, receives, from the user terminal, the search request for treatment cosmetic information using the skin classification and the user attribute information as search criteria, and transmits, in accordance with the search request, the treatment cosmetic information corresponding to the skin classification in association with the evaluation information corresponding to the attribute information (Baumann at 0016, “the invention can incorporate a patient or user (patient/customer) information collection step or process, where a user can save identifying information or a username to be retrieved or used later”, 0017, “a user ID for each individual customer or user, associate a user ID with that individual's skin or hair type”, 0022, “the invention provides a solution to the problem of selecting, recommending, or categorizing skin or hair care products so that professionals, patients or consumers can more accurately or more appropriately select or make recommendations on products that will improve hair or skin. By assigning a skin type or hair type, especially the skin or hair types of FIGS. 2 or 3, products can be matched to an individual's skin or hair in ways that prevent undesirable effects and/or improve various conditions in the skin or hair”, 0026, “One of skill in the art of online marketing and web-based sales is familiar with the user or customer ID options to associate a particular user with the information entered by that user, thus linking a satisfied user of a product to a particular skin or hair type”).
Claim 7: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller generates three or more skin classifications on a basis of similarity between data obtained by analyzing the pieces of biological information of the plurality of users regarding two or more evaluation items relating to the biological information (Baumann at 0018, “FIG. 2 depicts a chart with sixteen exemplary skin types, Baumann Skin Type, as referred to above”, Fig. 2).
Claims 8-9, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 3, and 7 as above since Baumann discloses an information processing method of providing information regarding a product for skin to each user, comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above (per the citations above for claim 1) and also discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method for providing information regarding a product for skin to each user comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above (Baumann at least at 0011, “the method can operate on or as a computer-based or network system, such that, for example, the score for each factor and/or the input of the scores and patient or user information can be performed via a terminal or computer or through an access to an online network”, where the computer and/or network necessarily requires the medium and instructions as claimed in order to operate as disclosed).
Claim 12: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the generating the skin classifications includes generation of a plurality of different combinations of a plurality of skin property items (Baumann at 0018, Fig. 2).
Claim 13: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing method according to claim 8, wherein three or more skin classifications are generated on a basis of similarity between data obtained by analyzing the pieces of biological information of the plurality of users regarding two or more evaluation items relating to the biological information (Baumann at 0018, Fig. 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan in still further view of Bandic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0194928, hereinafter Bandic) .
Claim 6: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller stores, on a basis of an analysis result of the re-provided biological information, the one of the skin classifications and the user attribute information in association with each other (0016, “the invention can incorporate a patient or user (patient/customer) information collection step or process, where a user can save identifying information or a username to be retrieved or used later”, 0017, “a user ID for each individual customer or user, associate a user ID with that individual's skin or hair type”, 0022, “the invention provides a solution to the problem of selecting, recommending, or categorizing skin or hair care products so that professionals, patients or consumers can more accurately or more appropriately select or make recommendations on products that will improve hair or skin. By assigning a skin type or hair type, especially the skin or hair types of FIGS. 2 or 3, products can be matched to an individual's skin or hair in ways that prevent undesirable effects and/or improve various conditions in the skin or hair”, 0026, “One of skill in the art of online marketing and web-based sales is familiar with the user or customer ID options to associate a particular user with the information entered by that user, thus linking a satisfied user of a product to a particular skin or hair type”).
Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose transmits, to the user terminal of the user corresponding to the user attribute information, proposal information for proposing re-provision of the biological information after a lapse of a predetermined time period from when the user attribute information was stored in association with the skin classification, and generates time series information regarding a skin classification corresponding to the user attribute information at a time of previous provision of the biological information and a skin classification corresponding to the user attribute information at a time of re-provision of the biological information and transmits the generated time series information to the user terminal corresponding to the user identification information. Bandic, however, teaches “a system and method for providing recommendations for skin care based on a skin state and a skin care goal may comprise obtaining a skin state of an individual, categorizing the individual by skin state, and recommending products and regimens that are effective for other individuals of the category in achieving the skin care goal” (Bandic at 0016), where “a user may use the display with positioning tools to obtain exact images over time, such as a series of images taken over different days” (Bandic at 0054), including “[a] method for tracking the effectiveness of a skin care product or regimen may comprise obtaining a baseline skin health assessment; recommending a monitoring interval based on at least one of the skin care goal, product, and regimen” (Bandic at 0121). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to proposing re-provision of information at a time period interval to generate time-series information is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to monitor and recommend products based on the overall trending and current needs of the individual.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the recommendations of Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan with the time interval recommendations of Bandic in order to propose re-provision of information at a time period interval to generate time-series information so as to monitor and recommend products based on the overall trending and current needs of the individual.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to proposing re-provision of information at a time period interval to generate time-series information is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to monitor and recommend products based on the overall trending and current needs of the individual as explained above.
Claims 10, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan in still further view of Martinez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0282449, hereinafter Martinez) .
Claims 10, 15,and 19: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing system, method, and medium according to claims 1, 8, and 9, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the skin classifications are generated based on 1000 or more and 20000 or less pieces of RNA information. Martinez, though, teaches “we analyzed bulk RNA … [for] ML classification of lesional skin among the … diseases” (Martinez at 0968), where “[t]he trained algorithm may be configured to identify the presence (e.g., positive test result) or absence (e.g., negative test result) of one or more conditions” with listed accuracy indications, and “[t]his accuracy may be achieved for a set of at least about 1,000, or more than about 1,000 independent samples” (Martinez at 0743) – the recitation of “at least about 1,000” indicating 1,000 or more, but also less than 20,000 since that is far more than “about” could be reasonably interpreted to encompass. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to use RNA of 1,000-20,000 persons is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to classify skin for a plurality of users in order to obtain more accurate results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the recommendations of Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan with the RNA and sample numbers of Martinez in order to use RNA of 1,000-20,000 persons so as to classify skin for a plurality of users in order to obtain more accurate results.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to use RNA of 1,000-20,000 persons is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to classify skin for a plurality of users in order to obtain more accurate results as explained above.
Claims 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan in still further view of Hood et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0095259, hereinafter Hood) .
Claims 11, 16, and 20: Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the generating the skin classifications includes performing clustering on the basis of expression levels of a related gene of a first certain function and a related gene of a second certain function. Hood, though, teaches “expression levels of molecules, refers to a region of multidimensional space classified using one or more statistical methods. The region represents a classification of expression levels that is representative of a health state and is diagnostically useful for determining the health state of an individual. One or more statistical methods, as disclosed herein, can be used to define a region of multidimensional space. Exemplary statistical methods include, for example, … classification analysis, cluster analysis” (Hood at 0043 – see also Hood at 0135) where “a reference population can be useful to identify molecules in the same or other reference populations that have variable expression such that they are preferably excluded from analysis of an expression profile of a sample” (Hood at 0057). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to perform clustering on the basis of expression level is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to associate reference populations and exclude dissimilar samples.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the recommendations of Baumann in view of Banet in further view of Maclellan with the clustering of Hood in order to perform clustering on the basis of expression level so as to associate reference populations and exclude dissimilar samples.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to perform clustering on the basis of expression level is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to associate reference populations and exclude dissimilar samples as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the prior art rejections (Remarks at 13-15); however, the amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant then argues the 101 eligibility rejections (Id. at 15-16), alleging the entire combination of elements is not an abstract idea (Id. at 15). However, the rejection details those aspects that are considered to indicate the abstract idea and also those aspects that are additional to the abstract idea and the analysis provided is based on the entirety of the combination as well as the individual elements. Applicant does not indicate any specific element, but merely that generating skin classifications, receiving attribute information, evaluating that received information to provide a recommended treatment based on users with the same skin classification is allegedly not an abstract idea; however, the Examiner notes that it is long established that persons (professionally and/or personally affiliated to an individual) have been providing recommendations based on others having the same skin classification (e.g., talking to cosmetologists, hair dressers, doctors/physicians, sales clerks, neighbors, etc.). The independent claims appear to require little more than computer implementation of such relationships. Applicant further alleges that the claims “cannot be performed in the human mind” (Id. at 16), but does not explain or offer reasoning as to why or how two people could not discuss this and provide such recommendations – persons have been doing so for many years.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Solutions for your skin, from Sephora.com, downloaded 23 August 2025 from https://web.archive.org/web/20191018201615/https://www.sephora.com/beauty/skin-care-for-different-skin-types, dated 18 October 2019, indicating the page capability to search for products according to skin type. The Examiner notes that screen capture repeats the images at pages 2 and 4 so as to capture the entire page.
Kothari, et al., "Cosmetic Skin Type Classification Using CNN With Product Recommendation," 2021 12th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Kharagpur, India, 2021, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICCCNT51525.2021.9580174. Date of Conference: 06-08 July 2021, Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 03 November 2021, downloaded 23 August 2025 from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9580174. Indicating “The skin spectrum is used in a wide range of studies like dermatology, biometric recognition, cosmetic research and disease detection. In cosmetic research, skin can be classified into four main categories as, normal, dry, oily and combination. The current methods to identify the cosmetic skin type are time consuming and error prone. Recently, Deep Learning algorithms have been in the limelight for various classification problems like text, audio, image and video classifications. In this paper, the applications of Convolutional Neural Network for skin type classification have been studied. To train the model, we have created a dataset of over 80 skin images, collected by web scraping and classified into oily and dry categories. To evaluate the performance of our model, we have used the trained model on a small sample of easily distinguishable images. The results of our CNN classification model show an accuracy of about 85% with a slight bias towards oily images. The results show that Deep Learning has great potential in the field of skin type classification from facial images, and with a dataset of greater size, could give more optimal and even lesser error prone results.” (at Abstract).
Koruga et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0245603, hereinafter Koruga) discusses that “In embodiments of the present invention, systems and methods of a method and algorithm for creating a unique spectral fingerprint are based on the convolution of RGB color channel spectral plots generated from digital images that have captured single and/or multi-wavelength light-matter interaction” (at Abstract).
Bandic et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0185064, hereinafter Bandic ‘064) indicates “The present invention generally relates to a skin care device comprising an electromagnetic radiation source capable of directing incident electromagnetic radiation to a location on the skin of a user, a radiation detector for measuring various parameters of radiation re-emitted from the location and a skin condition analysis module coupled to the detector, the analysis module capable of generating a skin condition assessment in real-time, based partly on at least one of RGB analysis and diffused reflectance analysis of the radiation parameters. In accordance with the described embodiments of the present technique, the device provides a mirror or a reflecting surface for capturing an image of desired body part and gets product recommendations. The recommended products are brought up on to the screen of the mirror to facilitate the consumer to choose there from. The device may be further connected to a computer and a database to get desired results for the consumer” (at Abstract).
Al-Mohair et al., Hybrid Human Skin Detection Using Neural Network and K-Means Clustering Technique, Applied Soft Computing, Volume 33, 2015, Pages 337-347, ISSN 1568-4946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.046. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568494615002732, downloaded 13 May 2026, indicating “Human skin detection is an essential step in most human detection applications, such as face detection. The performance of any skin detection system depends on assessment of two components: feature extraction and detection method. Skin color is a robust cue used for human skin detection. However, the performance of color-based detection methods is constrained by the overlapping color spaces of skin and non-skin pixels. To increase the accuracy of skin detection, texture features can be exploited as additional cues. In this paper, we propose a hybrid skin detection method based on YIQ color space and the statistical features of skin. A Multilayer Perceptron artificial neural network, which is a universal classifier, is combined with the k-means clustering method to accurately detect skin. The experimental results show that the proposed method can achieve high accuracy with an F1-measure of 87.82% based on images from the ECU database (at Abstract).
Tasoulis et al., Classification of dermatological images using advanced clustering techniques. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:6721-4. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626242. PMID: 21096085. Downloaded 13 May 2026 from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21096085/, indicating “Computer vision-based diagnosis systems have been widely used in dermatology, aiming at the early detection of skin cancer and more specifically the recognition of malignant melanoma tumor. This paper proposes a novel clustering technique for the characterization and categorization of pigmented skin lesions in dermatological images. Appropriate image processing techniques (i.e. segmentation, border detection, color and texture processing) are utilized for feature extraction. The proposed method uses Principal Component Analysis and is considered appropriate, since it is suitable for problems with high dimensional data. Initial experimental results have proved the superiority of this method against traditional ones” (at Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights