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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, drawn to an evaluation method of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 6/27/26 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “MRI(Magnetic Resonance Imaging) image” (lines 3-4) appears that it should be “MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) image.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “MRA-PC(Magnetic Resonance angiography – Phase Contrast) image” (lines 3-4) appears that it should be “MRA-PC (Magnetic Resonance angiography – Phase Contrast) image.”
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “MRI(Magnetic Resonance Imaging) image” (lines 4-5) appears that it should be “MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) image.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-10 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,” and “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.” 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. There are no additional elements in claim 1. 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) 2-10 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “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”).
For claim 1, 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”); and
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”).
Shiseido does not expressly disclose 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.
However, Kim 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]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Shiseido to include 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, in view of the teachings of Kim, for the obvious advantage of collecting more information that would allow for more data to be considered to make an even more accurate diagnosis/evaluation.
For claim 3, Shiseido further discloses 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”).
For claim 5, Shiseido further discloses presenting beauty information according to the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face of the evaluation target person (section entitled “The search for ingredients that keep capillaries thick and strong”).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiseido in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0146622 to Bock et al. (hereinafter “Bock”).
For claim 2, 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”); and
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”).
Shiseido does not expressly disclose the information including a measurement value of skin of a face of the evaluation target person.
However, Bock teaches the information including a measurement value of skin of a face of the evaluation target person (para [0007], [0072], [0112], and/or [0191]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Shiseido to include the information including a measurement value of skin of a face of the evaluation target person, in view of the teachings of Bock, for the obvious advantage of collecting more information that would allow for more data to be considered to make an even more accurate diagnosis/evaluation.
For claim 4, Shiseido, as modified, further 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 (see para [0007], [0072], [0112], and/or [0191] of Bock).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiseido in view of Kim, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0331246 to Chen.
For claim 6, Shiseido and Kim do not expressly disclose wherein the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is an artery.
However, Chen teaches wherein the blood vessel is an artery (para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Shiseido wherein the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is an artery, in view of the teachings of Chen, because an artery is a suitable blood vessel in the face.
For claim 7, Shiseido and Kim do not expressly disclose wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a blood flow velocity in the blood vessel.
However, Chen teaches wherein the state of the blood vessel is a blood vessel state calculated from a blood flow velocity in the blood vessel (para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Shiseido wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a blood flow velocity in the blood vessel, in view of the teachings of Chen, for the obvious advantage of collecting more information that would allow for more data to be considered to make an even more accurate diagnosis/evaluation.
For claim 8, Shiseido and Kim do not expressly disclose wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a flow rate of blood in the blood vessel and a radius of the blood vessel.
However, Chen teaches wherein the state of the blood vessel is a blood vessel state calculated from a flow rate of blood in the blood vessel and a radius of the blood vessel (para [0016]) (also see para [0007]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Shiseido wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a flow rate of blood in the blood vessel and a radius of the blood vessel, in view of the teachings of Chen, for the obvious advantage of collecting more information that would allow for more data to be considered to make an even more accurate diagnosis/evaluation.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiseido in view of Kim, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0256877 to Cho.
For claim 9, Shiseido and Kim do not expressly disclose wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a signal intensity in the blood vessel in an MRI image.
However, Cho teaches wherein the state of the blood vessel is a blood vessel state calculated from a signal intensity in the blood vessel in an MRI image (para [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Shiseido wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a signal intensity in the blood vessel in an MRI image, in view of the teachings of Cho, because MRI imaging is a suitable modality by which to get blood vessel state information.
For claim 10, Shiseido and Kim do not expressly disclose wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a signal intensity in the blood vessel in an MRA-PC image in an MRI image.
However, Cho teaches wherein the state of the blood vessel is a blood vessel state calculated from a signal intensity in the blood vessel in an MRA-PC image in an MRI image (para [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Shiseido wherein the state of the blood vessel in the deep part of the face is a blood vessel state calculated from a signal intensity in the blood vessel in an MRA-PC image in an MRI image, in view of the teachings of Cho, because MRA-PC imaging is a suitable modality by which to get blood vessel state information.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights