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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on April 17, 2026, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1, 11, 20-22, 25-26 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1, 11, 19-31 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities: “both the skin type selection algorithm and the skin microbiome analysis algorithm” in p. 4, ll. 24. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “both the pre-learned skin type selection algorithm and the pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm”.
Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities: “…, wherein the obtaining of the survey information comprises obtaining subjective survey information 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” in p. 6, ll. 1-6. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “…, wherein the obtaining of the survey information comprises obtaining subjective survey information 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”.
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 § 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)
derive key skin factors corresponding to the user's skin condition by weighting the subjective survey information and the objective survey information and,
based on the survey information,
select the user's skin type,
analyze the user's skin microbiome distribution,
derive information about a plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition with respect to a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age, and
provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for the plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the selected skin type and the analyzed 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 based on the key skin factors”, “by using a pre-learned skin 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 determine key skin factors by weighting the subjective survey information and the objective survey information. Similarly, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to select the user's skin type. Similarly, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to determine information about a plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition with respect to a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age. Finally, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to determine and provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for the plurality of microbiomes. 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 including subjective survey information including a 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,” 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 based on the key skin factors”, “by using a pre-learned skin 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 2106.05(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, claim 21 further describes the survey information. Similarly, claim 22 describes 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 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,”
Claims 26-31 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional
limitations that expand on the abstract idea, claim 26 further describes providing information. Similarly, claims 27-28 further describe obtaining information. Similarly, claims 29-30 further describe the user’s skin type and key skin factors. Finally, claim 31 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 26-31 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 11 (such as claim 27 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.
Claim 19 recites the same functions as claim 1, but in computer-readable non-transitory 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0316781) in view of Eder (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0235143) in further view of Prior (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0096078).
As per independent claim 1, Salem discloses a device for providing skin information, the device comprising:
a communication unit forming a network connection with an external device (See [0037]: The present design may take the form of a device including a reflective surface and at least one sensor and in certain instances more than one sensor, such as a camera and an audio collection device, where the device has processing and communication capability);
a user interface unit (See [0008]: A personal care display device comprising a plurality of sensors configured to sense attributes of a patient, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a video image collection device and an audio collection device, and a remote central server device arrangement connected to the personal care device);
a processor (See [0006]: The apparatus comprising a sensor configured to optically detect blood distribution analysis and spread at least two external regions of a user via at least one of skin color, skin tone, skin temperature, skin condition, and capillary refill, and a processor configured to determine an image based on the optical detection of the sensor, the image indicating a first blood distribution and spread for a first region of the user and a second image indicating a second blood distribution and spread for a second region); and
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to, by executing the instructions (See [0049]: A general view of the electronics employed in the present design is shown in FIG. 3, device 200 includes a processor 301 connected to a storage device, such as a memory device),
derive key skin factors corresponding to the user's skin condition by weighting 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])) and,
based on the survey information,
select the user's skin type by using a pre-learned skin type selection algorithm based on the key skin factors (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.)
While Salem discloses the device as described above, Salem may not explicitly teach
derive information about a plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition with respect to a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age,
and provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for the plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the selected skin type and the analyzed skin microbiome distribution.
Eder teaches a device for 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])),
and provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for the plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the selected skin type and the analyzed 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 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.”).)
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 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, and provide information on cosmetic products according to a mixing ratio of each microbiome for the plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user's skin condition based on the selected skin type and the analyzed 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 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]).
While Salem/Eder discloses the device as described above, Salem/Eder may not explicitly teach obtain survey information related to a user's skin condition including subjective survey information including a 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.
Prior teaches a device for obtain survey information related to a user's skin condition including subjective survey information including a user's subjective response in relation to the user's skin condition (See Table 3 and [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) and objective survey information including clinical data, microbiome data, human genome data, or metabolite data in relation to the user's skin condition (See Table 3 and [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, which the Examiner is interpreting the "biological information" may include physiological data that represents distinctive features or characteristics of an individual, including, but not limited to, age, cheek color, skin condition and complexion, and level of physical fitness, associated with a particular skin composition to encompass objective survey information including clinical data, microbiome data, human genome data, or metabolite data in relation to the user's skin condition.)
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 Salem/Eder to include obtain survey information related to a user's skin condition including subjective survey information including a 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 as taught by Prior. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Salem/Eder with Prior with the motivation of provide a more highly customized service experience (See Background of the Invention of Prior in Paragraph [0004]).
Claim(s) 11, 19 mirror claim 1 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 20-31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0316781) in view of Eder (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0235143) in view of Prior (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0096078) in further view of Kovarik et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0307813).
As per claim 20, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the device of claim 1 as described above. Salem/Eder/Prior may not explicitly teach wherein the processor provides information on cosmetic products including a mixing ratio of five microbiomes corresponding to the user’s current skin condition.
Kovarik teaches a device wherein the processor provides information on cosmetic products including a mixing ratio of five microbiomes corresponding to the user’s current skin condition (See [0017]: A method for treating cancer cachexia involves the administering to the microbiome of a subject in need thereof an effective amount of a bacterial combination that expresses p53 protein and tomatidine, in certain embodiments, the cancer is a metastatic cancer; and the microbiome is one or more of the gut microbiome, the oral microbiome or the skin microbiome, which the Examiner is interpreting an effective amount of a bacterial combination to encompass a mixing ratio of five microbiomes corresponding to the user’s current skin condition.)
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 Salem/Eder/Prior to include provides information on cosmetic products including a mixing ratio of five microbiomes corresponding to the user’s current skin condition as taught by Kovarik. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Salem/Eder/Prior with Kovarik with the motivation of extend the healthspan and lifespan of humans (See Background of the Invention of Kovarik in Paragraph [0013]).
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, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the device of claim 1 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the device of claim 20 as described above. Salem/Eder may not explicitly teach wherein the survey information includes subjective survey information and objective survey information.
Prior teaches a device wherein the survey information includes subjective survey information (See Table 3 and [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, which the Examiner is interpreting a subject’s self-evaluation to encompass subjective survey information) and objective survey information (See Table 3 and [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, which the Examiner is interpreting the "biological information" may include physiological data that represents distinctive features or characteristics of an individual, including, but not limited to, age, cheek color, skin condition and complexion, and level of physical fitness, associated with a particular skin composition to encompass objective survey information.)
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 Salem/Eder to include the survey information includes subjective survey information and objective survey information as taught by Prior. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Salem/Eder with Prior with the motivation of provide a more highly customized service experience (See Background of the Invention of Prior in Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 22, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the device of claim 1 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the device of claims 20-21 as described above. Salem further teaches wherein the key skin factors are used in both the pre-learned skin type selection algorithm and the pre-learned skin microbiome analysis algorithm (See [0067]-[0068]: 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.)
As per claim 23, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the device of claim 1 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the device of claims 20-22 as described above. Salem 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 [0043], [0068], [0080], [0087]-[0089]: 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, which the Examiner is interpreting skin category to encompass skin types, and interpreting the system may provide information including a graph, chart, updates and recommendations, microdermabrasion, chemical peels, facial cleansers, and creams to encompass select the user's skin type by using analysis information of the survey information about key skin factors.)
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, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the device of claim 1 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the device of claims 20-22 as described above. Salem further teaches wherein the key skin factors comprise elasticity, skin tone, oil amount, moisture loss amount, nasolabial folds, or pores (See [0043], [0068], [0080], [0087]-[0089]: 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.)
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 25, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the device of claim 1 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the device of claim 20 as described above. Salem may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user’s skin condition are derived based on a skin microbiome distribution analyzed by age.
Eder teaches a device wherein the plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user’s skin condition are derived based on 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 Salem to include the plurality of microbiomes corresponding to the user’s skin condition are derived based on 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 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]).
As per claim 27, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the method of claim 11 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the method of claim 26 as described above. Salem/Eder may not explicitly teach wherein the obtaining of the survey information comprises obtaining subjective survey information 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.
Prior teaches a method wherein the obtaining of the survey information comprises obtaining subjective survey information including the user's subjective response in relation to the user's skin condition (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])); 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.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Salem/Eder to include the obtaining of the survey information comprises obtaining subjective survey information 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 as taught by Prior. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Salem/Eder with Prior with the motivation of provide a more highly customized service experience (See Background of the Invention of Prior in Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 28, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the method of claim 11 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the method of claims 26-27 as described above. Salem further teaches wherein the obtaining of the survey information comprises deriving 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 the pre- learned skin type selection algorithm and the pre-learned 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.)
As per claim 31, Salem/Eder/Prior discloses the method of claim 11 and Salem/Eder/Prior/Kovarik discloses the method of claim 26 as described above. Salem may not explicitly teach wherein the analyzing of the user's skin microbiome distribution comprises deriving 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 method wherein the analyzing of the user's skin microbiome distribution comprises deriving 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 method of Salem to include the analyzing of the user's skin microbiome distribution comprises deriving 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 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]).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on April 17, 2026, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the 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 Examiner acknowledges that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the previous Claim Objection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) Applicant respectfully submits that the present invention is not merely a system for recommending cosmetic information to users, but rather a bio-data-based analysis system for the integrated analysis of various skin-related data - this is significantly more than an abstract idea or a person following instructions. Thus, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, therefore, the answer to Step 2A is NO. Prior to the claimed invention, skin conditions were often evaluated using only subjective information, such as user survey data, or limited data regarding skin condition; this approach had limitations in objectively analyzing skin conditions. To solve these problems, the present invention proposes a data processing structure that combines and processes user survey-based subjective data with clinical data and skin microbiome data to derive key skin factors. In addition, it includes a stepwise data processing process that selects a skin type using derived key skin factors and further analyzes the distribution of the skin microbiome to calculate the ratio of multiple microbial combinations. Such a data processing structure is not merely limited to providing information or organizing human activities nor is it simply mere instructions to apply an abstract idea; rather, it constitutes a technical means to improve the accuracy of skin condition analysis by integrally processing different types of biological data. In other words, the present invention can be understood as a computer-based technical system comprising a specific data processing structure for processing biological data, and it is not a mere abstract idea. Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 11, and 19-31, especially as amended, satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101, at least because the claimed invention integrates a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two YES) and recites significantly more than an abstract idea (Step 2B YES). Withdrawal of these rejections is respectfully requested;
(2) Applicants respectfully submit that the rejections of record are based upon a selective and unsupported reading of the cited publications and are based wholly on hindsight wherein Applicants' invention was used as a template. This approach to obviousness is not permitted. See, e.g., In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (noting that ''[i]t is impermissible ... simply to engage in a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the applicant's structure as a template and selecting elements from the references to fill the gaps."). Applicants respectfully submit that a prima facie case of obviousness against claims 1, 11, and 19-31, due to Prior, Salem, and Eder, has not been made. It is important to recognize that claims 1, 11, and 19-31 must be considered as a whole. See, e.g., KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007) (''What matters is the objective reach of the claim."); Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 776 F.2d 320, 324 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (noting that the references must be considered ''as a whole'' and that the claimed subject matter must be considered ''as a whole."). Considering claims 1, 11, and 19-31, as amended and as a whole is important because ''a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. That is because ''inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known." Neither Prior nor Salem nor Eder, either alone or in combination, discloses or suggests Applicant's claimed invention. Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references disclose only individual elements such as skin condition analysis, algorithm-based analysis, or microbiome analysis, and fail to disclose or suggest an integrated data processing structure that derives skin condition analysis results by processing different types of data stepwise, as in the present invention. In particular, the pending claims include a stepwise data processing structure comprising: (1) deriving key skin factors by combining user survey-based data, clinical data, and microbiome data; (2) selecting a skin type based on the key skin factors; (3) analyzing the skin microbiome distribution; and (4) calculating the ratio of multiple microbial combinations using the age-based microbiome distribution. The cited references do not disclose a stepwise data processing structure as described above, and in particular, the cited references do not present a structure that simultaneously derives information on skin type and microbial combinations by integrally analyzing user survey data, biological data, and microbiome data. Therefore, even if the cited references are combined, a person skilled in the art would not arrive at the data processing structure of the pending claims. Because Prior, Salem, and Eder, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the subject matter of claims 1, 11, and 19-31, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 19-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) due to Prior, Salem, 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 Applicant’s claimed invention does not describe additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner has supplemented the combination of Salem (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0316781) in view of Eder (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0235143) in view of Prior (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0096078) with Kovarik et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0307813) to address the newly amended claims. In response to applicant's argument that the cited references disclose only individual elements such as skin condition analysis, algorithm-based analysis, or microbiome analysis, and fail to disclose or suggest an integrated data processing structure that derives skin condition analysis results by processing different types of data stepwise, as in the present invention, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner maintains that the newly amended independent claims 1, 11, and 19 are rejected by Salem (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0316781) in view of Eder (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0235143) in view of Prior (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0096078), and claims 20-31 are rejected by Salem (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0316781) in view of Eder (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0235143) in view of Prior (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0096078) in further view of Kovarik et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0307813). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanina et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0083031), describes systems and methods for determining a health status of a patient through an automated interview.
Maclellan et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0051409), describes methods, systems, and storage media for determining a numerical classification of human skin color, determining one or more characteristics of skin based on images, and determining a personalized treatment plan for one or more skin conditions.
Loriè et al. (“The Future of Personalized Medicine in Space: From Observations to Countermeasures”), describes technological advances in sequencing, improved knowledge of omics, integration with bioinformatics and new in vitro testing formats, have enabled personalized medicine to become a reality.
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
Prosecution Insights