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 .
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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 9/4/26, amended claim(s) 1-2 and 9-10, and canceled claim(s) 3-4 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
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) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “acquiring information relating to an evaluation target person, the information including an actual age of the evaluation target person and an answer to a questionnaire about skin of a face of the evaluation target person,” “predicting a state of a blood vessel in a deep part of the face of the evaluation target person from the information relating to the evaluation target person,” “predicting a measurement value of the skin of the face of the evaluation target person from the state of the blood vessel at the deep part of the face of the evaluation target person,” and “wherein the measurement value of the skin of the face of the evaluation target person is an amount of sagging around eyes of the evaluation target person, and the amount of sagging around the eyes includes a volume of a portion around the eyes that is more depressed when the evaluation target person is in a vertical position than when the evaluation target person is in a horizontal position.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a computer” and “an imaging device.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by Alice and Bilski (which have held that generic computer structures do not transform patent-ineligible ideas into eligible ones) and para [0154] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0205738 to Adawi et al. (hereinafter “Adawi”). Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2 and 5-10 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Thus, claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“Shiseido Elucidates Mechanism by Which Capillaries Maintain Skin Elasticity,” by Shiseido in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0282703 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”).
Shiseido discloses an evaluation method (section entitled “’softness sensor’ APJ is a key molecule to produce thick capillaries”) comprising: acquiring information relating to an evaluation target person (section entitled “’softness sensor’ APJ is a key molecule to produce thick capillaries”); predicting a state of a blood vessel in a deep part of the face of the evaluation target person from the information relating to the evaluation target person (sections entitled “’softness sensor’ APJ is a key molecule to produce thick capillaries,” “VE-cadherin is a key molecule to produce strong capillaries,” and “The search for ingredients that keep capillaries thick and strong”); and predicting a measurement value of the skin of the face of the evaluation target person from the state of the blood vessel at the deep part of the face of the evaluation target person (sections entitled “VE-cadherin is a key molecule to produce strong capillaries,” and “The search for ingredients that keep capillaries thick and strong”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0282703 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) discloses teaches the information including an actual age of the evaluation target person and an answer to a questionnaire about skin of a face of the evaluation target person (para [0271]-[0273]).
JP 2014-4015 discloses wherein the measurement value of the skin of the face of the evaluation target person is an amount of sagging around eyes of the evaluation target person, and the amount of sagging around the eyes includes a parameter of a portion around the eyes when the evaluation target person is in a vertical position than when the evaluation target person is in a horizontal position (Abstract).
However, the prior art of record does not disclose and would not have rendered obvious the ordered combination of elements recited in the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/4/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the objections to the claims, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the objections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments will be treated in the order they were presented. With respect to the first argument, the claimed “computer” and “imaging device” are both recited in the preamble and the claim language is not so limited in scope as to remove it from covering subject matter within the realm of abstract ideas. That is, both the “computer” and the “imaging device” are considered under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework and the above-recited claim language is analyzed under step 2A. This claim language is still broad enough to encompass subject matter that can be performed by the human mind, especially due to the breadth of the claim language. With respect to the second argument, many of the portions argued by Applicant such as the “acquiring unit” and the “skin state predicting unit” aren’t terms that are recited in the claims and it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims. Even if they were recited, it’s not clear that these structures are not just generic computer structures that would be treated under step 2B. With respect to the third argument, the improvement in not an improvement in a particular technology, but an improvement of an abstract idea because identification of deeper blood vessels versus shallower blood vessels is not a technology, it is a process that can be performed in the human mind.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
