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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 8/21/2024.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are pending. Claim 14 is canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 and 2/6/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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 detector”, “a generator”, ‘a formulation control data”, “image provider interface”, “monitoring data provider interface”, and “difference provider” in claims 12-13.
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
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 3-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite “and/or” within the body of the claim rendering claim unclear. For the examination purpose this will be interpreted as “or”.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is NOT directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claimed “computer element” are non-structural per se, and the specification does not exclude the “computer element” from being software (see page 4 lines 9-14 and 20-25). Therefore, a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification leads to the conclusion that the claim encompasses pure software, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more. Claim 1 is used as an example. Claims 12 and 13 recite an apparatus. The two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) are:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1. (Currently amended) A method for generating formulation control data for producing a cosmetic product for treating skin conditions, the method comprising: (a) providing an image including a face representation (116), (b) detecting at least one facial property (124, 132, 134) associated with one or more sub-area (116, 118, 122) of the face representation (116), (c) generating formulation control data by deriving one or more formulation component from the at least one facial property associated with one or more sub-area (116, 118, 122), (d) providing the formulation control data usable to produce the cosmetic product (200) containing the one or more formulation component. [emphasis added].
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite an apparatus and a method, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental process – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The steps of (b), (c) and (d) (above in emphasized claim 1) are generically recited and nothing in these steps precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human equipped with an appropriate apparatus. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the image data and determining a section in the image that needs attention, for example. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen and a paper, can not perform. The detecting in (b) and generating in (c), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim encompasses the user looking at part of the face that needs cosmetic application or a treatment once the image is received, attribute such as a shape or a condition (i.e., wrinkles) of a section of the image can be determined. This way, essentially one can present/output information about the section of an image that represents that shape/condition depending on person’s judgement/mental decisions. If one is going to a party at night, one may choose to select a different set of cosmetic materials for their face than when they at an afternoon pool party. Per applicant’s specification, formulation control data includes consideration of the location, environment, event, etc. Thus, these limitations are a mental process/abstract idea.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of (a) “providing”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of a apparatus/computer to receive an image (i.e., “data”) at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “providing” – similar to “receiving”). Supplying “data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said system operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “processor”/“computer” that may be, for example, a camera on a phone. A camera/sensor/phone is well known in the field, and receiving data from a camera/sensor is also well known.
This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
With regard to (2B), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only steps of (b), (c) and (d) with additional elements of (a), and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 12 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
With regard to dependent claims 2-11 and 13, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – does not provide significant more than the judicial exception. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1 and not repeated herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2023/0144089 to Ifergan et al. (hereafter, “Ifergan”).
With regard to claim 1 Ifergan discloses a method for generating formulation control data for producing a cosmetic product for treating skin conditions (), comprising: providing an image including a face representation (facial image at paragraph [0029]; face 7 in Figure 2a, paragraph [0108], The FIG. 2a shows an appliance 5, 6 according to the invention to detect the face 7 of an user, paragraph [0039, 0052-0054]), detecting at least one facial property (paragraph [0032-0033], at least one condition selected among roughness, cracks of the skin, sebum excess, scars from acne, compounded loss of skin elasticity, the skin grain, the wrinkles, the pigmentation, skin radiance, skin brightness,…) associated with one or more sub-area (paragraphs [0040, 0060]) of the face representation (face 7 in Figure 2a, paragraph [0108], The FIG. 2a shows an appliance 5, 6 according to the invention to detect the face 7 of an user, paragraph [0031]; paragraph [0032] where eyes, lips, nostrils being the sub-area of the face), generating formulation control data by deriving one or more formulation component from the at least one facial property associated with one or more sub-area (paragraphs [0029-0031 and 0038-0044, figuring out a tailor-made cosmetic formulation, paragraph [0069-0079), providing the formulation control data usable to produce the cosmetic product containing the one or more formulation component (paragraphs [0094-0106], creation of a tailor-made cosmetic formulation with at least 1 base and at least 1 active ingredient).
With regard to claim 2 Ifergan discloses wherein the facial property relates to at least one skin condition associated with one or more sub-area of the face representation, wherein detecting the facial property includes generating a score (paragraph [0092, 0096]) related to the at least one skin condition (dryness, sensitivity, wrinkles, etc. paragraph [0096]), wherein generating formulation control data includes determining one or more formulation component based on the skin condition and the score (paragraphs [0094-0106]).
With regard to claim 3 Ifergan discloses wherein the formulation component relates to a base formulation and/or an active ingredient, wherein at least one base formulation and at least one active ingredient to be used for producing the cosmetic product (paragraphs [0095-0102]) or at least first active ingredient and second active ingredient to be used for producing the cosmetic product are derived from the at least one facial property associated with one or more sub-area (paragraphs [0094-0106]).
With regard to claim 4 Ifergan discloses wherein ingredients data relating to one or more formulation component usable to produce the cosmetic product and/or [respective capsule containing formulation component usable to produce the cosmetic product are provided], wherein the ingredients data relate the at least one facial property (124, 132, 134) to respective formulation component [and/or respective capsule], wherein the formulation control data is generated based on the ingredients data by selecting one or more formulation component [and/or respective capsule based on the at least one facial property] (paragraphs [0095-0109]).
With regard to claim 5 Ifergan discloses wherein ingredients data relates to laboratory measurement data signifying the compatibility of one or more formulation component, wherein the formulation control data is generated based on the ingredients data by selecting one or more formulation component based on their compatibility (paragraphs [0010 and 0029).
With regard to claim 6 Ifergan discloses wherein the formulation control data is generated by selecting, based on the at least one facial property (124, 132, 134) associated with one or more sub-area, at least one sub-area specific base formulation and/or one or more sub-area specific active ingredient usable to produce a sub-area specific formulation of the cosmetic product (paragraphs [0031, 0033, 0095-0109]).
With regard to claim 7 Ifergan discloses wherein multiple facial properties are detected per sub-area, wherein at least one base formulation and/or one or more active ingredient is derived from the respective facial properties (paragraphs [0032-0033, 0069-0074, 0092, 0096]).
With regard to claim 8 Ifergan discloses wherein scores are determined for the skin condition per sub-area, wherein sub-area specific formulation control data is derived based on the skin condition and associated score per sub-area (paragraphs [0076, 0086, 0092 and 0096).
With regard to claim 11 Ifergan discloses wherein at least one facial property (124, 132, 134) [and/or at least one difference between at least one current facial property (124, 132, 134) and at least one historical facial property (124, 132, 134)] is displayed in association with one or more sub-area of the face representation (116) overlaid on the image including the face representation (116) (paragraphs [0009-0010, 0029, and 0053]).
With regard to claims 12 and 15, claims 12 and 15 are rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 12 and 15. Ifergan discloses a device shown in Figures 2a and 2b, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
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 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 of this title, 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 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2023/0144089 to Ifergan et al. (hereafter, “Ifergan”) in combination with US 11,416,950 to Jung et al. (hereafter, “Jung”).
With regard to claim 9, Ifergan teaches the method of claim 1. However, Ifergan does not teach determining a difference between at least one current facial property (124, 132, 134) and at least one historical facial property (124, 132, 134) and determining one or more formulation component based on the determined difference.
Jung teaches determining a difference between at least one current facial property (124, 132, 134) and at least one historical facial property (124, 132, 134) and determining one or more formulation component based on the determined difference (col. 6 lines 21-40; col. 10 lines 19-25; col. 14 lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ifergan’s reference to have difference determined between current and historical property of Jung’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to compare the dosage with stored dosage – to essentially determine the difference, if any – so further to determine the actual final dosage form component, as suggested by Jung at col. 6.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jung with Ifergan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
With regard to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected same as claims 1 and 9 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 9 are equally applicable to claim 13, and all of the other limitations similar to claims 1 and 9 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. Ifergan discloses all of the limitations similarly recited in claim 13, as mentioned above in claim 1. Further, claim 9 recited limitations of “determining difference”, for example. Ifergan discloses system of sensors/detectors, paragraph [0032]. Further, Jung illustrates in Fig. 1, control unit 130, memory unit 150, etc. Therefore, in combination claim 13 is met and not repeated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2023/004177A1 – discloses systems and methods for determining physical parameters of feet where the output image of model (segmented image 406) may be resized (resized segmented image 408) prior to being provided as input to a second deep learning model (“model c”). In at least one embodiment, a smaller image (e.g., a 640 x 640 region) may be obtained by cropping the resized segmented image 408 at a region around the centroid of the identified fiducial marker, and model c is then applied to the smaller image to segment the fiducial marker.
US 11,172,750 – discloses a hydrogel discharge device including a capsule introduction unit, into which a plurality of capsules each receiving a hydrogel dosage form is introduced, a dosage form transfer unit including a plurality of channels, along which the hydrogel dosage forms received in the capsules move, a dosage form spray unit for discharging the hydrogel dosage forms supplied from the dosage form transfer unit, and a dosage form solidification unit for solidifying the hydrogel dosage forms discharged from the dosage form spray unit, whereby it is possible to easily and conveniently manufacture a mask pack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights