DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0048315, filed on April 19, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0050414, filed on April 18, 2023.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on November 25, 2025, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1, 11, 19 have been amended, claim(s) 20-31 have been added, and claim(s) 2-10, 12-18 have been cancelled. Now, claim(s) 1, 11, 19-31 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “the mixing ratio” in p. 2, ll. 16. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a mixing ratio”.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “the mixing ratio” in p. 2, ll. 26, p. 3, ll. 1. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a mixing ratio”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication unit”, “a user interface unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 20-31 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 20 recites the limitation "the subjective and objective data" in p. 3, ll. 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Subjective and objective data” are not mentioned in independent claim 1 that claim 20 depends on. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “subjective and objective data”.
Claims 21-25 are rejected due to their dependency to claim 20.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the subjective and objective data" in p. 4, ll. 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Subjective and objective data” are not mentioned in independent claim 11 that claim 26 depends on. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “subjective and objective data”.
Claims 27-31 are rejected due to their dependency to claim 26.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 19-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s)
based on the survey information, select the user's skin type, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution, and provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution
These limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people,
including following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for the generic computer components of “a communication unit forming a network connection with an external device;” “a user interface unit;” “a processor;” “a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to, by executing the instructions”, “by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm,”, “by using a pre-learned microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information,” the claim recites a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to select the user's skin type, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution, and provide information on cosmetic products. These steps could be accomplished by a user following rules or instructions.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining
elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform
the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1, directly or indirectly, recites the following generic computer components
configured to implement the abstract idea: “a communication unit forming a network connection with an external device;” “a user interface unit;” “a processor;” “a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to, by executing the instructions”. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “obtain survey information related to a user's skin condition and,…” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than storing and retrieving information in memory. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims recite “by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm,”, “by using a pre-learned microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information,” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitations are also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of
the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer
configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to
apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception
using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at
223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention.”)
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to
significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered
alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claims 20-25 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional
limitations that expand on the abstract idea, claim 20 further describes providing information. Similarly, claims 21-22 describe following instructions to derive key skin factors. Similarly, claims 23-24 describes following instructions to distinguish skin types and select the user’s skin type. Finally, claim 25 further describes deriving information about a plurality of microbiomes. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 20-25 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claim 21 recites additional limitations that amount to insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 11, 26-31 recite the same functions as claim 1, but in method form. Claim 11 does not describe the generic computer components “a communication unit forming a network connection with an external device; a user interface unit; a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to, by executing the instructions,”
Claim 19 recites the same functions as claim 1, but in computer-readable recording medium form.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11, 19-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prior (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0096078) in view of Salem (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0316781) in further view of Eder (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0235143).
As per independent claim 1, Prior discloses a device for providing skin information, the device comprising:
a communication unit forming a network connection with an external device (See [0048], [0050]: The computer further contains an output or displaying module in communication with the data processing module for displaying the result, which the Examiner is interpreting the computer to encompass an external device and the communication to encompass a network connection);
a user interface unit (See [0050]: The output or displaying module may include the computer display screen for visually displaying the result, which the Examiner is interpreting displaying module to encompass a user interface unit);
a processor (See [0046]: The computer further contains a data processing module, which the Examiner is interpreting a data processing module to encompass a processor); and
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to, by executing the instructions (See [0051]: The computer has a memory module for storing information, which the Examiner is interpreting a memory module to encompass a memory),
obtain survey information related to a user's skin condition and, based on the survey information (See [0074]-[0075]: Information is obtained through a subject's self-evaluation as prompted by a questionnaire containing various questions related to a few general categories or factors including age, body, skin, and lifestyle), select the user's skin type by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution by using a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information, and provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution.
While Prior discloses the device to obtain survey information related to a user's skin condition and, based on the survey information, Prior may not explicitly teach select the user's skin type by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution by using a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information.
Salem teaches a device for select the user's skin type by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm (See [0067], [0080], [0150]: Skin health may be assessed according to skin turgor, color, skin breakdown, and degree of edema, which the Examiner is interpreting the different algorithms and training sets to encompass a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm, and the skin health to encompass the user's skin type when combined with Prior), analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution by using a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information (See [0067], [0087]: Different readings and different algorithms can be employed for different parts of the body, e.g. bumps and lumps on the skin surface, different angles of inclination, joint range of movement, and so forth, which the Examiner is interpreting the different algorithms to encompass a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information, and interpreting skin category may be assessed, including determining consumer inputs, oil content of skin, and reflexive skin properties, and providing a graph of skin, oily to dry, recommended moisturizing and cleansing creams and the system may also evaluate pores, determining distribution and spread measured by number per square centimeter and measure color and size of pores to encompass analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the device of Prior to include select the user's skin type by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution by using a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information as taught by Salem. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Prior with Salem with the motivation of enhances the ability to noninvasively and remotely assess, validate, and predict vital signs of a specific individual patient (See Background of the Invention of Salem in Paragraph [0005]).
While Prior/Salem discloses the device as described above, Prior/Salem may not explicitly teach provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution.
Eder teaches a device for provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution (See [0032], [0250]-[0251]: The subject entity genomic variants by module and gene, the enterotype classification of the subject's microbiome, the subject's microbiome mix of bacteria, the variation in the subject's microbiome mix from the enterotype mix, which the Examiner is interpreting the subject's microbiome mix of bacteria to encompass a mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution, and edgetic individualized medicine software (900) controls the performance of the central processing unit (137) as it completes the data processing used for developing and/or providing medical advice, medical diagnoses and/or medical treatments that are appropriate to the resilient context of the subject entity to encompass cosmetic products.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the device of Prior/Salem to include provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution as taught by Eder. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Prior/Salem with Eder with the motivation of improve the health of the subject entity (See Detailed Description of the Invention of Eder in Paragraph [0363]).
Claim(s) 11, 19 mirror claim 1 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
As per claim 20, Prior/Salem/Eder discloses the device of claim 1 as described above. Prior/Salem may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions, provide information on cosmetic products based on the user's skin type and skin microbiome distribution, along with the mixing ratio of five microbiomes that correspond to the user's current skin condition, by weighting subjective and objective data contained in the survey data to match key skin factors.
Eder teaches a device wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions, provide information on cosmetic products based on the user's skin type and skin microbiome distribution, along with the mixing ratio of five microbiomes that correspond to the user's current skin condition, by weighting subjective and objective data contained in the survey data to match key skin factors (See [0032], [0250]-[0251]: The subject entity genomic variants by module and gene, the enterotype classification of the subject's microbiome, the subject's microbiome mix of bacteria, the variation in the subject's microbiome mix from the enterotype mix, which the Examiner is interpreting the subject's microbiome mix of bacteria to encompass provide information on cosmetic products based on the user's skin type and skin microbiome distribution, and edgetic individualized medicine software (900) controls the performance of the central processing unit (137) as it completes the data processing used for developing and/or providing medical advice, medical diagnoses and/or medical treatments that are appropriate to the resilient context of the subject entity to encompass cosmetic products (when combined with Salem as Salem describes in [0042]: “As may be understood, any type of interaction between the user, user device 102b, and processing and storage site 101 may be employed as desirable, such as determining the user's body type and recommending clothing for the user, determining skin tone and making a recommendation for particular skin care and/or cosmetic purchases, and so forth.”).)
Claim(s) 26 mirrors claim 20 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 20.
As per claim 21, Prior/Salem/Eder discloses the device of claims 1, 20 as described above. Prior further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions,
obtain subjective survey information (See [0072]-[0074]: Information may be collected by asking the individual to conduct a self-evaluation, recording responses on a questionnaire, which the Examiner is interpreting self-evaluation to encompass the user's subjective response in relation to the user's skin condition ([0072])) including the user's subjective response in relation to the user's skin condition and objective survey information including clinical data, microbiome data, human genome data, or metabolite data in relation to the user's skin condition (See [0074]: Some information may also be collected by a trained consultant who examines the individual and evaluates characteristics of the individual according to photo-grading (0-10) scales, so as to improve the objectivity and accuracy of the evaluation, which the Examiner is interpreting the information collected by a trained consultant to encompass objective survey information including clinical data.)
Claim(s) 27 mirrors claim 21 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 21.
As per claim 22, Prior/Salem/Eder discloses the device of claims 1, 20-21 as described above. Prior may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions,
derive key skin factors based on the subjective survey information and the objective survey information, the key skin factors corresponding to the user's skin condition and being used in a skin type selection algorithm and a skin microbiome analysis algorithm.
Salem teaches a device wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions,
derive key skin factors based on the subjective survey information and the objective survey information (See [0164]: The present design thus provides a personal care module that is configured to receive, from a sensor configured to detect blood distribution analysis and spread at two or more regions of a user via user skin color, tone, temperature, condition (dry/soft/firm/swollen/sunken), and capillary refill, which the Examiner is interpreting user skin color, tone, temperature, condition to encompass key skin factors based on the subjective survey information and the objective survey information ([0124])), the key skin factors corresponding to the user's skin condition and being used in a skin type selection algorithm and a skin microbiome analysis algorithm (See [0067]: Different readings and different algorithms can be employed for different parts of the body, e.g. bumps and lumps on the skin surface, different angles of inclination, joint range of movement, and so forth, which the Examiner is interpreting the different algorithms to encompass a skin type selection algorithm and a skin microbiome analysis algorithm.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the device of Prior to include derive key skin factors based on the subjective survey information and the objective survey information, the key skin factors corresponding to the user's skin condition and being used in a skin type selection algorithm and a skin microbiome analysis algorithm as taught by Salem. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Prior with Salem with the motivation of enhances the ability to noninvasively and remotely assess, validate, and predict vital signs of a specific individual patient (See Background of the Invention of Salem in Paragraph [0005]).
Claim(s) 28 mirrors claim 22 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 22.
As per claim 23, Prior/Salem/Eder discloses the device of claims 1, 20-22 as described above. Prior further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions,
distinguish skin types according to oil, moisture, color, and elasticity and select the user's skin type by using analysis information of the survey information about key skin factors (See [0074]: Biological and/or psychological information of the type which may be useful in assisting the TCM practitioner in determining the subject's unique skin composition footprint is collected from a subject, which the Examiner is interpreting the biological information to encompass oil, moisture, color, and elasticity, and interpreting the subject's unique skin composition footprint to encompass distinguish skin types.)
Claim(s) 29 mirrors claim 23 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 23.
As per claim 24, Prior/Salem/Eder discloses the device of claims 1, 20-22 as described above. Prior further teaches wherein the key skin factors comprise elasticity, skin tone, oil amount, moisture loss amount, nasolabial folds, or pores (See Table 1: Skin condition, Skin color, Skin Tone are parameters that can be questioned, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass skin tone.)
Claim(s) 30 mirrors claim 24 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 24.
As per claim 24, Prior/Salem/Eder discloses the device of claims 1, 20 as described above. Prior/Salem may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions,
derive information about a plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition with respect to a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age.
Eder teaches a device wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions,
derive information about a plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition with respect to a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age (See [0051]-[0053], [0131]-[0134], [0250]: If the nextgen sequence data comprises bacteria data from the subject entity microbiome, then the software in this block will also compare the data to the reference enterotypes in order to identify the enterotype of each microbiome population, which the Examiner is interpreting identify the enterotype of each microbiome population to encompass a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age (See [0051]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the device of Prior/Salem to include derive information about a plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition with respect to a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age as taught by Eder. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Prior/Salem with Eder with the motivation of improve the health of the subject entity (See Detailed Description of the Invention of Eder in Paragraph [0363]).
Claim(s) 31 mirrors claim 25 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 25.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on November 25, 2025, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the Claim Objection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner acknowledges that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the previous Claim Objection(s), the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) directed to non-statutory subject matter of claim 19, and the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s). However, the Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the newly added Claim Objection(s), Claim Interpretation(s), 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims, especially as amended, do not recite an abstract idea corresponding to human mental activity. Rather the pending claims, especially as amended, include technical features that improve the operation of the device and provide practical benefits through data processing on a hardware device containing actual programmed data that select the user's skin type by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution by using a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm, and provide information on cosmetic products according to the mixing ratio of each microbiome. Accordingly, Applicant believes that the amendments to independent Claims 1 and 11 render moot the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and respectfully request withdrawal thereof;
(2) Applicant respectfully submits that Prior fails to disclose each and every element of Claims 1, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, and 30, especially as amended. Not to acquiesce in the Office's rejections but solely to facilitate prosecution, by the foregoing amendments independent Claims 1 and 11 were amended, as detailed above. In particular, Claim 1 has been amended to recite "select the user's skin type by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution by using a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information, and provide information on cosmetic products according to the mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution" and Claim 11 was amended to further recite "and providing information on cosmetic products according to the mixing ratio of each microbiome for multiple microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the user's skin type and the user's skin microbiome distribution." In addition, Claims 10 and 18 were cancelled, without prejudice or disclaimer, and dependent Claims 2, 4, and 5 (now Claims 21, 23, and 24), are amended to depend from new Claim 21 and dependent Claims 12, 14, and 15 (now Claims 27, 29, and 30), were amended to depend from new Claim 26. The Office admits that "Prior may not explicitly teach 'wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the instructions, analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution by using a pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm based on the survey information."' See Office Action mailed on August 26, 2025, Page 24. Thus, Applicant believes that these amendments render moot the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and respectfully requests withdrawal thereof;
(3) the deficiencies of Prior, set forth above, are not cured by any of Salem. As detailed above, by the foregoing amendments, Claim 8 was cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer, and Claim 3 and 13 (now Claims 22 and 28) were amended to depend from new Claims 20 and 26, respectively. Prior and Salem fail to disclose or suggest the claimed device or claimed method, especially as amended. In addition to Prior and Salem failing to disclose or suggest the subject matter of independent Claims 1 and 11, Prior and Salem, either alone or in combination, also fail to disclose or suggest "skin microbiomes." While Salem recites "microbiome", this disclosure is related to gut bacteria microbiome, not skin microbiomes. Because Prior and Salem, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the subject matter of Claims 22 and 28, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of Claims 3 and 13 (now Claims 22 and 28) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to Prior and Salem;
(4) the deficiencies of Prior, set forth above, are not cured by any of Eder. As detailed above, by the foregoing amendments, Claims 7, 9, and 17 were cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer, and Claim 6 and 16 (now Claims 25 and 31) were amended to depend from new Claims 20 and 26, respectively. Because Prior and Eder, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the subject matter of Claims 25 and 31, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of Claims 6 and 16 (now Claims 25 and 31) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to Prior and Eder.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people, including following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)), which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive in view of the newly amended claims. The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s).
In response to argument (3), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Prior/Salem/Eder encompasses the newly amended claimed portion of “skin microbiomes” as Eder discloses in Paragraph [0131]: “Microbiome--one or more microbial communities that inhabit a particular organism, for example the human microbiome includes communities located in or on nasal passages, oral cavities, skin, the gastrointestinal tract and the urogenital tract, community members include bacteria and fungi”, which when combined with Salem’s disclosure of “microbiome” to encompass “skin microbiome”. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Prior/Salem/Eder encompasses the newly amended claims. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683