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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on March 09, 2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 4-15 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-21 are pending and under examination in this Office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 09, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 10, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 19 is now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
A new ground of rejection to claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is now raised in view of the claim amendment.
The rejection to claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained but modified to address the claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in p.2, ll.24-25 “normalizing the first intensity based on an intensity of the light which the first light source irradiates and the first intensity” that renders the scope of the claim unclear: (1) the term “a first intensity” is recited in line 20 as referring to “a first intensity of light corresponding to a third wavelength band”, yet the first light source is recited in line 17 to irradiate “the light of the first wavelength band”. Hence, the term “the first intensity based on an intensity of the light which the first light source irradiates” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further it is unclear whether this first intensity is associated with the first wavelength or the third wavelength. (2) the normalization step as recited is performed to normalize between two identical terms “the first intensity”. It is unclear what it means by normalizing two identical intensities.
The same rejection applies to claim 1, p.3, ll.6-8 for the second intensity.
The same rejection applies to claim 10, p.6, ll.4-6 for the first intensity, and ll.18-20 for the second intensity.
The same rejection applies to claim 13, p.9, ll.15-17 for the first intensity, and ll.29-31 for the second intensity.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-9 and 21 are directed to an “device” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Claims 10-18 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claims 19-20 are drawn to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a manufacture.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “obtain a first coefficient by normalizing the first intensity based on an intensity of the light which the first light source irradiates and the first intensity; obtain a second coefficient, by normalizing the second intensity based on an intensity of the light which the second light source irradiates and the second intensity, and based on subtracting the second coefficient from the first coefficient obtain the AGEs data of skin and obtain a health condition diagnosis of a user based on the AGEs data of skin”.
In claims 1, 10 and 19, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind. If a person were to visually examine and evaluate the first intensity and the second intensity, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to normalize the first intensity and the second intensity to obtain the first coefficient and the second coefficient, respectively. To normalize data is merely to scale the data to a standard value. He/she would further be able to perform a subtraction of the second coefficient from the first coefficient and obtain the AGEs data based on medical knowledge or by comparing with some look-up table that presents the correlation of the differential coefficient and the AGEs data. He/she would further be able to obtain a health condition diagnosis of a user based on the AGEs data, for example, a health condition may be associated when the AGEs data is high, is low, has a positive changing slope, has a negative changing slop, or plateau over time…etc. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the first intensity of light and the second intensity of light are processed to derive the AGEs data. Therefore, a person would be able to provide the AGEs data mentally.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites additional steps of (1) a first light source and a second light source configured to irradiate light at a particular wavelength; a RGB sensor configured to measure an intensity of incident light and output the measured intensity of light; the RGB sensor is used to obtain AGEs data of skin or an image; memory storing one or more computer programs; one or more processors configured to control the first light source and the second light source to irradiate the light of a particular wavelength range; and based on controlling the first light source and the second light source, obtain, through the RGB sensor, a first intensity and a second intensity of light corresponding to a particular wavelength by controlling the RGB sensor while the first light source and the second light source operate; and (2) the AGEs data of skin is provided by at least one of displaying data corresponding to the AGEs data of skin on a display of the electronic device, outputting the data corresponding to the AGEs data of skin through an output device different from the display, or transmitting the data corresponding to the AGEs data of skin to an external device.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. A RGB sensor is an optical sensor that comprises R, G and B channels that receive and measure light intensities at their respective wavelength ranges. To control the light sources to irradiate the light of a particular wavelength, and to receive and measure the light intensity with a light sensor are data collection pre-solution activity.
The steps in (2) represent merely outputting the ACEs data by a display, an output device or some transmitting means as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality. Note that the outcome of the abstract idea is the health condition diagnosis, and this outcome is not even output in any meaningful way.
In regard to the processor and the memory that stores one or more computer program that are executed by the one or more processor to perform the steps, it is further noted that a claim that requires computer may still recite a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.: “Performing a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform the steps are considered a mental process”.
In regard to “the RGB sensor is used to obtain AGEs data of skin or an image; memory storing one or more computer programs”, since the RGB sensor is used to measure the light intensity, and the light intensity is further analyzed to obtain the AGEs data, this limitation is still considered as a pre-solution data collection step that generates the information (i.e., the light intensities) that is necessary for implementing the abstract idea.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the AGEs or the health condition diagnosis data is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1, 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of (1) a first light source and a second light source configured to irradiate light at a particular wavelength; a RGB sensor configured to measure an intensity of incident light and output the measured intensity of light; the RGB sensor is used to obtain AGEs data of skin or an image; memory storing one or more computer programs; one or more processors configured to control the first light source and the second light source to irradiate the light of a particular wavelength range; and based on controlling the first light source and the second light source, obtain, through the RGB sensor, a first intensity and a second intensity of light corresponding to a particular wavelength by controlling the RGB sensor while the first light source and the second light source operate; and (2) the AGEs data of skin is provided by at least one of displaying data corresponding to the AGEs data of skin on a display of the electronic device, outputting the data corresponding to the AGEs data of skin through an output device different from the display, or transmitting the data corresponding to the AGEs data of skin to an external device. For similar reasons set forth in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for obtaining the AGEs data and the health condition diagnosis, and outputting amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
further abstract idea of obtaining the AGEs data of skin by applying the skin reflectance to identify the amount of autofluorescence (claims 7 and 13) – similar consideration as Prong 2.i is applied here - if a person were to visually examine the skin reflectance data, i.e., perform an observation, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to identify the amount of the autofluorescence based on medical knowledge or by comparing with some look-up table that presents the correlation of the light intensity and the AGEs data.
further abstract idea of identifying the AGEs data of skin by subtracting an intensity of reflected light according to the identified skin reflectance from the first intensity of light of the third wavelength band (claim 21) – similar consideration as Prong 2.ii is applied here – a subtraction is metal step.
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
describing the first light (claims 2 and 16);
describing the second light (claims 3 and 17);
describing the third light (claims 4 and 18);
describing the sensor and the light being detected (claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 20); and
describing further additional elements of identifying a skin reflectance and an amount of autofluorescence of a user’s skin (claim 7 and 13 – further pre-solution data collection that is recited in a high level of generality and does not provide an inventive concept).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the rejection to claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner’s consideration in regard to Applicant asserted on pp.16-17, Section V is addressed below:
p.16: “Applicant has amended to claims to enhance that the claimed electronic apparatus/method/non-transitory computer readable recording medium, at the least, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application…In this case, independent claims 1, 10 and 19, as a whole integrate, how an electronic device provides an advanced glycation end products (AGEs) data of skin by non-invasively measuring amount of skin autofluorescence (e.g., a practical application)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, the electronic device is recited to comprise a first light source, a second light source, a RGB sensor, memory, and one or more processors. The memory and the one or more processors are generic computation devices. These components are all recited in a high level of generality with no inventive concept. Hence they do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea, nor do they integrate the identified abstract idea into any practical application. As considered in the rejection, any light sources would be configured for emitting lights of particular wavelength or wavelength ranges; and a RGB sensor is an optical sensor that comprises R, G and B channels that receive and measure light intensities at their respective wavelength ranges. Further in regard to the processor and the memory that stores one or more computer program that are executed by the one or more processor to perform the steps, a claim that requires computer may still recite a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.: “Performing a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform the steps are considered a mental process”.
P.16: “The claims are directed to an invention that could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind. MPEP 2106.04 states “ A claim with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process”; and p.17: “The human mind does not have, as a practical matter, the ability for identifying first and second intensities of light in different wavelength bands and providing AGEs data of skin based on the first and second intensities of light in different wavelength bands without human intervention”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as indicated in the rejection, the abstract idea is identified to be the steps of “obtain a first coefficient by normalizing the first intensity based on an intensity of the light which the first light source irradiates and the first intensity; obtain a second coefficient, by normalizing the second intensity based on an intensity of the light which the second light source irradiates and the second intensity, and based on subtracting the second coefficient from the first coefficient obtain the advanced glycation end products (AGEs) AGEs data of skin and obtain a health condition diagnosis of a user based on the AGEs data of skin”. These steps can be reasonably performed in a human mind or with an aid of a pen and paper.
The asserted feature of “identifying first and second intensities of light in different wavelength bands” (see the underlined portion above) in the rejection is not part of the abstract idea but rather an insignificant pre-solution data collection step that generates information needed for performing the abstract idea.
Further, the asserted feature of “providing AGEs data of skin based on the first and second intensities of light in different wavelength bands without human intervention” (see the italic portion above) is part of the identified abstract idea. With this feature being recited in a high level of generality, to obtain AGEs data based on the light intensities may be achieved based on medical knowledge or by comparing with some look-up table that presents the correlation of the differential coefficient and the AGEs data. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the first intensity of light and the second intensity of light are processed to derive the AGEs data.
P.17: “Examiner Yang suggested further amending the claims to add non-conventional tools. Here, Applicant has amended the claims to replace “Sensing circuit” with “RGB sensor” for adding non-conventional tools”. Examiner appreciate Applicant’s take on the amendment suggestion, yet amending the sensing circuit to the RGB sensor is not sufficient to make it a non-conventional tool. A RGB sensor is an optical sensor that comprises R, G and B channels that receive and measure light intensities at their respective wavelength ranges. It is recited in a high level of generality without an inventive concept. It is considered not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Pp.17-18: “there is no correspondence in the pre-computer world for the claimed features. Again, these are improvements in the area of computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, not mere abstract ideas. In other words, the current claim very clearly pertains to a solution based only in computer technology to solve a problem, which has no counterpart outside of computer networks”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, the memory and the one or more processor are recited in the claim as a tool (i.e., a generic computer) to perform the steps of an abstract idea. The claim is not recited, nor does the Examiner consider that the claimed invention advances any computer technology. The claim pertains to obtaining a health condition diagnosis of a user, yet it is recited in a high generality without undue complexity such that a person may reasonably achieve the outcome mentally. Further, the outcome of the abstract idea (i.e., the health condition diagnosis) is recited to be merely output on a display, on an output device, or transmitted to another device, for which it is considered not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized.
Based on the above considerations, claims 1-21 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm 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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights