DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are hereby the present claims under consideration.
Examiner’s Note: all references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US publication of the present application US 20250380899 A1.
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 .
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 multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit in claim 1
a solution providing unit in claim 1
a melanin distribution confirmation unit in claim 1
a dark circle cause determination unit in claim 1
a wrinkle cause determination 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.
a multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit in claim 1 is interpreted as the particular algorithm for carrying out the recited function of acquiring the user’s skin analysis information from the multi-wavelength images. The specification does not describe a specific structure or algorithm for carrying out the recited function. In particular, the specification paragraph 0035 describes the acquisition unit as including various other units but does not describe a particular structure for the unit or describe its specific function.
a solution providing unit in claim 1 is interpreted as the particular algorithm for performing the recited function of offering information of recommended cosmetics corresponding to the measured skin condition. Paragraph 0074 recites that the solution providing unit may offer moisturizing products when the cause of wrinkles in moisture, elasticity produces when the cause of wrinkles is lack of elasticity, whitening products when the cause of dark spots is high melanin, and products with good redness or vasodilation when the cause of dark spots is hemoglobin. Thus the solution providing unit is interpreted as the algorithm that recommends the products that correspond to the particular causes of skin conditions set forth in paragraph 0074.
a melanin distribution confirmation unit in claim 1 is interpreted as the particular algorithm for performing the recited function of determining a melanin state of the user’s skin. Paragraphs 0040-0048 recite an algorithm for determining a melanin index by performing imaging at a two wavelengths wherein the generated image undergoes binarization to extract melanin regions and are then combined and also requiring performing imaging at the third and fourth wavelengths and determining a differential image based on the images at the third and fourth wavelengths to generate a melanin distribution from the images and calculating a melanin index based on the melanin optical density . The melanin distribution confirmation unit is interpreted as the above described method of paragraphs 0040-0048 and its equivalents.
a dark circle cause determination unit in claim 1 is interpreted as the particular algorithm for performing the recited function of determining a cause of a dark circle. Paragraphs 0049-0067 recite an algorithm for determining whether a dark circle is caused by melanin or hemoglobin based on correspondence between the dark circle and either hemoglobin or melanin concentration in the dark circle area greater than a threshold amount. The dark circle cause determination unit is interpreted as the algorithm of paragraphs 0049-0067 and its equivalents.
a wrinkle cause determination unit in claim 1 is interpreted as the particular algorithm for performing the recited function of determining a cause of wrinkle based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers. Paragraphs 0068-0073 recite that wrinkles are considered deep when they are visible in the dermis imaging wavelength and shallow when visible in the epidermis imaging wavelength. The wrinkle cause is considered to be moisture when the wrinkles are shallow and the cause is considered to be elasticity when the wrinkles are deep. The wrinkle cause determination unit is considered to be the process recited in paragraphs 0068-0073 and its equivalents.
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.
The limitation of “a skin condition measuring unit” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the limitation includes all of the required structure for performing the recited function. The skin condition measuring unit is interpreted as the camera and light source.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 the limitation “a multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification does not describe a particular structure or algorithm to perform the recited functions of this unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “skin analysis information” but it is unclear if this information is the same as, related to, or different from, “a melanin state”, “a cause of dark circles”, and/or “a cause of wrinkle” which are all determined by subsets of the multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit. For the purposes of this examination, the skin analysis information is considered to comprise each of the other recited limitations.
Claim 1 recites “multi-wavelength images acquired from the multi-wavelength light source” but it is unclear how the light source is acquiring the images. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as the images acquired from the camera.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the measured skin condition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear how or if this limitation relates to the determined melanin state, cause of dark circles, and/or cause of wrinkles. For the purposes of this examination the measured skin condition will be considered as the parameters: melanin state, cause of dark circles, and/or cause of wrinkles.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the melanin distribution confirmation unit, acquires a first wavelength image using a first light source having a first wavelength, acquires a second wavelength image using a second light source having a second wavelength that is shorter than the first wavelength” which indicates that the melanin distribution confirmation unit acquires images using light sources however it would seem from claim 1 that the “skin condition measuring unit” includes a camera and multi-spectral light source. It is unclear if the light sources of claim 2 are the same as, related to, or different from the multi-spectral light source of claim 1. It is further unclear if the images of claim 2 are acquired using the camera of the skin condition measuring unit of claim 1, or the first/second light sources. It is unclear how the light sources could be used to acquire the images. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as the skin condition measuring unit acquiring the images using the light source and camera of claim 1. This rejection and interpretation are similarly applied to claims 3 and 5 which respectively indicate that the melanin distribution confirmation unit acquires third and fourth images using respective third and fourth wavelength light sources and that the wrinkle cause determination unit acquires fifth and sixth wavelength images based on fifth and sixth light sources. Each of these recited images and light sources are interpreted as having been acquired by the skin condition measuring unit of claim 1 and wherein each of the first through sixth light sources are part of the multi-wavelength light source of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “generates a differential image” but it is unclear what a “differential image” entails and how such an image is generated. In particular, it is unclear what makes an image generated from two other images a “differential image” as opposed to a combined image or any other type of image that is the product of multiple other images. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as an image generated from two images where one image is subtracted from, or otherwise used to compensate the other.
Claim 4 recites that the dark circle cause determination unit “determines that a cause of a user's dark circle is caused due to pigmentation when a melanin component is detected above a predetermined first component amount in the detected dark circle area, and determines that the cause of the user's dark circle is caused due to vasodilation when a hemoglobin component is detected above a predetermined second component amount in the detected dark circle area” but it is unclear from where and how the “melanin component” and “hemoglobin component” are derived, acquired, and/or determined. It is unclear what part of the device determines these components and from what they are determined from. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the dark circle cause determination unit receiving images and determining a melanin component and a hemoglobin component therefrom.
Claim 5 recites “determines wrinkle classification depending on a wrinkle creation layer” but it is unclear what a “wrinkle creation layer” comprises and how such a layer is determined. It is unclear if the wrinkle creation layer is a skin layer or some other type of “layer” related to the formation of wrinkles. It is unclear from what the wrinkle creation layer is determined from. It is unclear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from “wrinkle forming layers” of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, the wrinkle creation layer will be interpreted as a subset of wrinkle forming layers and as either the epidermis or the dermis and will be interpreted as being determined based on a wrinkle depth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 the limitation “a multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification does not describe a particular structure or algorithm to perform the recited functions of this unit. Therefore, the claim lacks sufficient written description support and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-5are directed to a method of processing skin images using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-5 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019) and the 2024 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol 89, No. 137, page 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] offering information on recommended cosmetics corresponding to the measured skin condition
[B1] acquiring the user's skin analysis information through multi-wavelength images
[C1] determining a melanin state of the user's skin
[D1] determining a cause of dark circles
[E1] determining a cause of wrinkle based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers
These elements [A1]-[E1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper. In particular, each of the claimed steps are interpreted as recited in the above presented claim interpretation section. Each of the algorithms set forth in the specification are considered to be drawn to abstract ideas requiring nothing more than extrasolution data gathering and/or display of results. In particular, the recommendation of cosmetics is merely a matching of the determined causes of conditions to particular cosmetics, which is readily performed by a clinician such as a dermatologist. The acquiring of skin analysis information which is interpreted as the acquiring of a melanin state, a cause of dark circles, a cause of wrinkles, is further considered to be drawn towards an abstract idea capable of being performed in the human mind.
The determination of the melanin state involves the receipt of images which is mere data gathering as will be addressed further in step 2B, performing a threshold binarization operation on the images, (a human mind is readily capable of comparing values in an image to a threshold and generating an image that only retains the accepted values on pen and paper) and then adding the binarized images together (the human mind is readily capable of mapping the values of two images together and adding them) and/or receiving the images and generating a difference image therefrom (the human mind is readily capable of mapping the values of two images together and subtracting them) and using the resultant different image to determine a melanin index by calculating a ratio between the pixel value in the melanin area to the light source intensity such as through the described optical density calculation equation in the specification (the described calculation is not so complex as to be outside the possibility of being performed in the human mind using pen and paper).
The determination of a cause of dark circles involves the receipt of images which is mere data gathering as will be addressed further in step 2B, the detection of a dark circle area thereon according to the reference features of the face (the human mid can find reference features and use them to identify a desired area), calculate an average value for pixels in the area and pixel adjacent to the area (the human mind may perform mathematical operations such as averaging values), and determine if the dark circles are caused based on melanin or hemoglobin based on a requisite difference between the averages and correspondence of the area with a threshold value in the melanin and/or hemoglobin index (the human mind may make these comparisons, the hemoglobin and melanin indexes are calculated similarly and, as described above, the process of generating such values is considered an abstract idea)
The determination of a cause of wrinkles based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers involves the receipt of images which is mere data gathering as will be addressed further in step 2B, and designating wrinkles as either shallow if they occur in only the epidermis layer or deep if they occur in the dermis layer (the human mind may classify the wrinkles in this manner from the provided images), shallow wrinkles are then labelled as caused by moisture and deep wrinkles are labelled as caused by elasticity (the human mind may perform such labelling)
As described above, the operations of each of the recited units, as interpreted in light of the above presented 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above, are drawn towards abstract ideas capable of being performed in the human mind.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] a skin condition measuring unit measuring a user's skin condition using a camera and a multi-wavelength light source
[B2] a multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit
[C2] a solution providing unit
[D2] a melanin distribution confirmation unit
[E2] a dark circle cause determination unit
[F2] a wrinkle cause determination unit
These elements [A2]-[F2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the elements [B2]-[F2] are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation the recitation “a skin condition measuring unit measuring a user's skin condition using a camera and a multi-wavelength light source” is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the data acquirer is nothing more than a light source which may produce a plurality of wavelengths and a camera. Such device are conventional as evidenced by Applicant’s lack of a particular description regarding their structure and/or operation in paragraphs 0008, 0010-0011, 0032, and 0036-0037 and further evidenced by :
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20060276966 A1 (Cotton) discloses that cameras and light sources which emit white light or colored light are conventional (paragraph 0149of Cotton);
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20030198384 A1 (Vrhel) discloses that cameras are conventional (paragraph 0091 of Vrhel);
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20090275841 A1 (Melendez) teaches that LEDs are typical and using LEDs of varying wavelengths to control specific lighting conditions and the circuits to perform such control are well-known (paragraph 0145 of Melendez); and
Further, the elements [B2]-[F2] do not qualify as significantly more because these limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). In particular, each of the various units are merely a recitation to carry out the abstract idea on a computer processor.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions:
Claim 2: acquiring the first and second wavelength images using the first and second light sources;
Claim 3: acquiring a third and fourth wavelength images based on the third and fourth light sources and
Claim 5: acquiring a first and second wrinkle image based on a fifth and sixth light source.
Each of these claim limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the elements of claims 2-3 and 5 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, each of these limitations does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because they are merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, acquiring the various images based on the various light sources does not qualify as significantly more because, as described above, the acquisition of images using the camera is considered mere data gathering and the specification does not particularly describe the structure and/or operational mechanism of any of the light sources which, in combination with the teachings of Cotton, Vrhel, and Melendez above, illustrate that light sources and camera used to acquire the images are well-known, routine, and conventional elements.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandic US Patent Application Publication Number US 20100185064 A1 hereinafter Bandic in view of Patwardhan US Patent Application Publication Number US 20190298252 A1 hereinafter Patwardhan in view of Godavarty US Patent Number US 11471696 B1 hereinafter Godavarty in view of Altshuler US Patent Application Publication Number US 20070060819 A1 hereinafter Altshuler in view of Kimura US Patent Application Publication Number US 20170119301 A1 hereinafter Kimura further in view of Du US Patent Application Publication Number US 20230189964 A1 hereinafter Du and evidenced by Miyamae US Patent Application Publication Number US 20090134331 A1 hereinafter Miyamae.
Regarding claim 1, Bandic discloses a multi-wavelength skin analysis device (Abstract), comprising:
a skin condition measuring unit measuring a user's skin condition using a camera and a multi-wavelength light source (Paragraph 0233: the light source may emit any wavelength including infrared, visible, and ultra-violet; Paragraph 0234: the camera);
a multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit acquiring the user's skin analysis information through multi-wavelength images acquired from the multi-wavelength light source (Paragraph 0251: the skin condition analysis module for analyzing the images to generate the skin condition assessment); and
a solution providing unit offering information on recommended cosmetics corresponding to the measured skin condition (Paragraph 0262: the skin care regimen recommendation module which generates recommended products based on the skin condition assessment),
Bandic further discloses an algorithm for determining skin characteristics such as melanin concentration, wrinkles, hemoglobin, spots, elasticity, and moisture levels (Paragraph 0059, 0090, 0353, 0361, 0467, 0477). Bandic further teaches the analysis of the layers of skin by varying the depth of measurement by changing the angle of incidence and/or the wavelength of light used for imaging. Bandic discloses that different fluorophores and/or chromophores may be targeted for measurement by using specific wavelengths of monochromatic or semi-monochromatic light. Specific chromophores such as hemoglobin have specific absorption profiles and thus by imaging the skin under specific wavelengths of light the distribution of the chromophores can be determined. The imaging method may involve taking separate images under different wavelengths of illumination (Paragraphs 0067 and 0305). The various skin structure such as pores, wrinkles, moisture, elasticity, and other conditions may be associated with certain depth in the skin (Paragraph 0303). Wrinkle measurement may further include a wrinkle stage determination and wrinkles are measured as a district characteristic from fine lines. The skin images include images of the epidermis and the dermis (Paragraphs 0060, 0217 and 0315 This in combination with the above teachings of 0067, 0303, and 0305 is considered to teach the determination of what layer a wrinkle is visible in). Bandic further teaches that different imaging types can be mapped or overlaid to each other so that the skin state can be determined based on the correspondence between multiple images at different wavelengths (Paragraphs 0019, 0258, 0302, 0305, and 0321). Bandic contemplates providing the patient with information relating to the cause of various skin conditions (Paragraph 0419). Thus Bandic further discloses the measurement and determination of distribution for various chromophores such as melanin and hemoglobin as well as the mapping of dark spots and wrinkles
Bandic fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein the multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit comprises a melanin distribution confirmation unit for determining a melanin state of the user's skin (Interpreted as requiring imaging at a two wavelengths wherein the generated image undergoes binarization to extract melanin regions and then combining the images, and also requiring performing imaging at the third and fourth wavelengths and determining a differential image based on the images at the third and fourth wavelengths to generate a melanin distribution from the images and calculating a melanin index based on the melanin optical density), a dark circle cause determination unit for determining a cause of dark circles (interpreted as determining whether a dark circle is caused by melanin or hemoglobin based on correspondence between the dark circle and either hemoglobin or melanin concentration in the dark circle area greater than a threshold amount), and a wrinkle cause determination unit for determining a cause of wrinkle based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers (Interpreted as determining wrinkles are deep when they are visible in the dermis imaging wavelength and shallow when visible in the epidermis imaging wavelength. The determination of what layer the wrinkles are visible in is taught by Bandic as presented above but their labelling and further determining the wrinkle cause to be moisture when the wrinkles are shallow and the cause to be elasticity when the wrinkles are deep are not taught by Bandic) as interpreted in view of the above presented claim interpretation section.
Patwardhan teaches methods and apparatuses are disclosed for assessing pigmentation of skin based on images thereof (Abstract). Thus, Patwardhan falls within the same field of endeavor as Application’s invention.
Patwardhan teaches that melanin images may undergo a thresholding, or binarization, operation to separate pigmented from depigmented skin. The threshold for performing this operation may be generated by Otsu’s thresholding method. The generated pigmentation image may be used to generate a heatmap of the pigmentation levels over the user’s face (Paragraphs 0061-0068). Patwardhan further teaches that melanin images may be affected by hemoglobin presence since hemoglobin still absorbs light in the melanin wavelengths used for melanin imaging although significantly less than melanin. To compensate for this interference, the melanin image may have the hemoglobin image subtracted or divided from it to generate a corrected melanin absorption image, or a differential image with emphasized melanin regions (Paragraphs 0081-0084). Thus, Patwardhan teaches the generation of a melanin distribution image by generating a differential image which emphasizes melanin by removing interference from hemoglobin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the binarization process and differential image generation as taught by Patwardhan into the device of Bandic because performing binarization and generating the differential image which corrects for interference caused by other chromophore absorption may result in a more accurate melanin map being generated. The implementation of Patwardhan teaches the binarization and performing imaging at the third and fourth wavelengths and determining a differential image based on the images at the third and fourth wavelengths to generate a melanin distribution from the images as required by the melanin distribution confirmation unit
Bandic in view of Patwardhan fails to teach the device wherein the multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit comprises a melanin distribution confirmation unit for determining a melanin state of the user's skin, a dark circle cause determination unit for determining a cause of dark circles, and a wrinkle cause determination unit for determining a cause of wrinkle based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers as interpreted in view of the above presented claim interpretation section.
Godavarty teaches multi-modal, portable, handheld devices for tissue assessment (Abstract). Thus, Godavarty falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Godavarty teaches that melanin and hemoglobin maps of the tissue may be generated by co-registering and/or performing image segmentation of a plurality of different images taken under single or multi-wavelength illumination. Any of the plurality of images may be co-registered with each other to generate a map of a desired chromophore (Col 1 line 65 – Col 2 line 45 and claims 10, 13, and 17: the melanin map of the tissue; Col 9 lines 20-53: the co-registration of any of the images taken under desired wavelength illumination to generate maps). Thus, Godavarty teaches generating images at multiple different single wavelength illuminations to form melanin and hemoglobin region images and combining those images to form a melanin and/or hemoglobin map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the generation of multiple images at different wavelengths of illumination and the combination of those images to form a melanin map as taught by Godavarty into the device of Bandic in view of Patwardhan because Bandic already discloses the generation of such images at multiple single wavelengths of illumination (Bandic: paragraph 0305: sequential illumination at single or multiple wavelengths and the collection of images therefrom) and Bandic also further contemplates combining images (Bandic: paragraphs 0019: the overlaying of skin assessment data locations onto a skin image; paragraph 0316: the overlaying of various wavelengths, intensities, and the like) and Godavarty teaches that such methods may be used to generate distribution maps of various chromophores including melanin and hemoglobin (Col 1 line 65 – Col 2 line 45) which would allow the device to present a easy to understand image of the distribution of chromophores to a user. The implementation of Godavarty teaches imaging at a two wavelengths and wherein the generated images are combined to form a melanin map, as required by the melanin distribution confirmation unit
Bandic in view of Patwardhan further in view of Godavarty fails to teach the device wherein, the multi-purpose skin analysis information acquisition unit comprises a melanin distribution confirmation unit for determining a melanin state of the user's skin, a dark circle cause determination unit for determining a cause of dark circles, and a wrinkle cause determination unit for determining a cause of wrinkle based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers as interpreted in view of the above presented claim interpretation section.
Altshuler teaches dermatological devices and methods in which one or more skin characteristics, such as the melanin index, are determined by analyzing radiation backscattered from a skin region (Abstract). Thus Altshuler falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Altshuler teaches that a wide variety of different wavelengths can used for measuring the content of a chromophore. Altshuler teaches that it is desirable to select wavelengths having differential responses to the chromophore of interest (Paragraphs 0021, 0051-0054, and 0092). Altshuler further teaches the calculation of a melanin index using the slope of the apparent optical density at two wavelengths which is proportional to the melanin concentration. The melanin optical density is based on the intensity of the radiation reflected back from the skin (Paragraphs 0081-0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the melanin index calculation of Altshuler into the device of Bandic in view of Godavarty further in view of Patwardhan because it is a simple substitution of one known method (the melanin calculation method of Bandic) with another known method (the melanin calculation method of Altshuler) with no surprising technical effect (melanin is detected and its concentration and distribution are determined). The implementation of Altshuler teaches calculating a melanin index based on the melanin optical density s as required by the melanin distribution confirmation unit.
Bandic in view of Godavarty in view of Patwardhan further in view of Altshuler fails to teach the device, comprising a dark circle cause determination unit for determining a cause of dark circles, and a wrinkle cause determination unit for determining a cause of wrinkle based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers as interpreted in view of the above presented claim interpretation section.
Kimura teaches a program through which it is possible to intuitively and visually recognize skin conditions (Abstract). Thus, Kimura falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Kimura teaches that melasma, or dark spots, may be imaged and the position of the dark spot is illustrated based on melanin. Additionally a redness analysis is performed to determine if the melasma is caused by a capillary, or hemoglobin in blood, and if so, the position of melasma considered to be caused by capillary is also illustrated. This allows for the intuitive visual recognition of skin conditions and their associated cause (Paragraphs 0127-0130; Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the visual depiction of dark spots using melanin and capillary analysis to determine if a dark spot is caused by capillary, or hemoglobin in blood, or melanin as taught by Kimura into the device of Bandic in view of Patwardhan further in view of Godavarty because such a visualization of which chromophore is causing the dark spot may allow the user to better understand the underlying cause of the dark spot and seek out appropriate treatment. Bandic already contemplates displaying information relating to the cause of measured conditions to the user (Bandic: paragraph 0419) and such a visualization would provide useful insight to the user into the cause of dark spots which may improve the helpfulness of the device to the user and allow them to make appropriate decisions regarding skin care. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to label the cause of the dark spot as each element, the melanin and/or hemoglobin from the capillaries, that contributes to the pigmentation of to the dark spot. Such a variation would be obvious to try because there are a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success regarding which of the imaging chromophores is designated as the cause of the dark spot. In particular, the device may attribute the cause of the dark spot to be both of the elements shown to contribute to the spot, the element which contributes the most to the dark spot, the element that contributes the least to the dark spot, or whichever element contributes more than some threshold amount to the spot. Thus, there are a finite number of identifiable and predictable solutions with a reasonably expectation of success in regards to what to label as the cause of the dark spot. Thus, Modified Bandic in view of Kimura is considered to at least suggest displaying the cause of a dark spot, or melasma, to be melanin and/or hemoglobin from capillary blood when the respective melanin or redness analysis determines some threshold presence of the chromophore in the dark spot area. The implementation of Kimura teaches determining whether a dark circle is caused by melanin or hemoglobin based on correspondence between the dark circle and either hemoglobin or melanin concentration in the dark circle area greater than a threshold amount as required by the dark circle cause determination unit
Bandic in view of Patwardhan in view of Godavarty in view of Altshuler further in view of Kimura fails to teach the device, comprising a wrinkle cause determination unit for determining a cause of wrinkle based on identification of wrinkle-forming layers as interpreted in view of the above presented claim interpretation section.
Du teaches a method of recommending cosmetics based on a melanin index and a hemoglobin index and a device thereof (Abstract). Thus, Du falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Du teaches that a lack of moisture in the epidermis may cause wrinkles (Paragraph 0041). Du further teaches that a lack of elasticity in the dermis may also cause wrinkles due to abnormal elastin fibers (Paragraphs 0043 and 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the wrinkle causes taught by Du into the device of Bandic in view of Patwardhan further in view of Godavarty further in view of Kimura because Bandic already contemplates determining a wrinkle depth, or layer, and a wrinkle stage (Bandic: paragraphs 0303 and 0315) as well as providing the user with information related to a cause of the skin condition (Bandic: paragraph 0419) and the teachings of Du would provide the device with a cause to assign to early stage, fine lines and/or shallow wrinkles, which is a lack of moisture (Du: paragraph 0041: moisture in the upper part of the epidermis may cause wrinkles including accelerating the development of fine wrinkles) and a cause to assign for deeper, later stage wrinkle which may be a lack of elasticity in the dermis (Du: paragraphs 0043 and 0060: the degradation of collagen fibers in the dermis may cause wrinkles). Assigning the causes in this manner would be obvious because shallow wrinkles are known to be associated with the epidermis while deep wrinkles are known to be influenced by the dermis as evidenced by Miyamae paragraph 0003. Including these cause explanations into the device of Bandic in view of Godavarty in view of Patwardhan further in view of Kimura would provide useful insight to the user into the cause of wrinkles which may improve the helpfulness of the device to the user and allow them to make appropriate decisions regarding skin care. The implementation of Kimura and evidence of Miyamae teaches determining wrinkles are deep when they are visible in the dermis imaging wavelength and shallow when visible in the epidermis imaging wavelength. Further determining the wrinkle cause to be moisture when the wrinkles are shallow and the cause to be elasticity when the wrinkles are deep as required by the wrinkle cause determination unit.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bandic teaches the multi-wavelength skin analysis device of claim 1. Modified Bandic further teaches the device wherein the melanin distribution confirmation unit, acquires a first wavelength image using a first light source having a first wavelength, and acquires a second wavelength image using a second light source having a second wavelength that is shorter than the first wavelength (Paragraphs 0067 and 0305: acquiring multiple images at using single wavelength illumination). Bandic further discloses the evaluation of melanin (Paragraph 0353).
Modified Bandic fails to further disclose the device wherein: extracts a first melanin region image based on the first wavelength image, extracts a second melanin region image based on the second wavelength image, and combines the first melanin region image and the second melanin region image with a skin image of the user to acquire a melanin distribution image through the combination.
Patwardhan teaches a device which extracts a first melanin region image based on the first wavelength image, extracts a second melanin region image based on the second wavelength image (Paragraphs 0061-0068: The input images undergo a thresholding operation, or binarization, to generate heat maps, or melanin region images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the binarization process as taught by Patwardhan into the device of modified Bandic because performing binarization may result in a more accurate melanin map being generated.
Modified Bandic in view of Patwardhan fails to further teach the device which combines the first melanin region image and the second melanin region image with a skin image of the user to acquire a melanin distribution image through the combination.
Godavarty teaches that melanin distribution maps may be generated by co-registering, or combining, a plurality of different images including RBG images and/or auto-fluorescence images at specific wavelength(s) of choice (Col 1 line 65 – Col 2 line 45 and claims 10, 13, and 17: the melanin map of the tissue; Col 9 lines 20-53: the co-registration of any of the images taken under desired wavelength illumination to generate maps)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the generation of multiple images at different wavelengths of illumination and the combination of those images to form a melanin map as taught by Godavarty into the device of modified Bandic in view of Patwardhan because Bandic already discloses the generation of such images at multiple single wavelengths of illumination (Bandic: paragraph 0305: sequential illumination at single or multiple wavelengths and the collection of images therefrom) and Bandic also further contemplates combining images (Bandic: paragraphs 0019: the overlaying of skin assessment data locations onto a skin image; paragraph 0316: the overlaying of various wavelengths, intensities, and the like) and Godavarty teaches that such methods may be used to generate distribution maps of various chromophores including melanin and hemoglobin (Col 1 line 65 – Col 2 line 45) which would allow the device to present a easy to understand image of the distribution of chromophores to a user.
Regarding claim 3, modified Bandic teaches the multi-wavelength skin analysis device of claim 1. Modified Bandic further teaches the device wherein the melanin distribution confirmation unit, acquires a third wavelength image using a third light source having a third wavelength, which is a longest wavelength among the multi-wavelength light source, acquires a fourth wavelength image using a fourth light source having a fourth wavelength, which is a is shortest wavelength among the multi-wavelength light source (Paragraphs 0067 and 0305: acquiring multiple images using single wavelength illumination).
Bandic is considered to implicitly disclose the third wavelength being the longest wavelength and the fourth wavelength is the shortest wavelength because only two wavelengths (the third and fourth wavelengths) have been set forth as being utilized by the device. Since Bandic teaches the capture of different wavelengths, the longer of the two is considered to be the third wavelength and the shorter is considered to be the fourth. Bandic further discloses the evaluation of melanin (Paragraph 0353). Additionally, the specific wavelengths utilized and their relationships to each other is considered to be a matter of routine optimization and experimentation as the particular wavelength utilized is a results driven dependent upon a variety of factors such as the chromophore being imaged, the skin tone of the user, the required accuracy of the measurement, the depth of measurement, and a variety of other factors. This is further illustrated by the teachings of Altshuler which teaches that a wide variety of different wavelengths can used for measuring the content of a chromophore. Altshuler teaches that it is desirable to select wavelengths having differential responses to the chromophore of interest (Altshuler: Paragraphs 0021, 0051-0054, and 0092). Applicant’s specification does not set forth that the claimed relationship between these wavelengths solves any particular problem or is for a specific purpose. In particular, paragraphs 0041 and 0045 merely recite that the wavelengths have different absorbances for melanin. Thus, Applicant’s specification does not establish criticality for the claimed relationship between the wavelengths. In light of the lack of criticality and the teachings of the art that the particular wavelengths utilized are a results driven variable, limitations drawn towards specific wavelengths or specific relationships between wavelengths are considered matters of routine optimization and experimentation. This rationale is hereinafter referred to as the wavelength relationship optimization rationale.
Modified Bandic fails to further teach the device which generates a differential image based on the third wavelength image and the fourth wavelength image, and acquires a distribution image in which a melanin region is emphasized based on the generated differential image.
Patwardhan further teaches a device which generates a differential image based on the third wavelength image and the fourth wavelength image, and acquires a distribution image in which a melanin region is emphasized based on the generated differential image (Paragraphs 0081-0084: the melanin images may be affected by hemoglobin presence. The melanin images may be corrected by subtracting the hemoglobin contribution, or generating a differential image. The compensated image shows the distribution of pigmentation due to melanin and is considered to “emphasize” the melanin regions since hemoglobin contributions have been removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the differential image generation as taught by Patwardhan into the device of modified Bandic because generating the differential image which corrects for interference caused by other chromophore absorption may result in a more accurate melanin map being generated.
Regarding claim 4, modified Bandic teaches the multi-wavelength skin analysis device of claim 1. Modified Bandic further teaches the device wherein the dark circle cause determination unit, detects a dark circle area of the user from a skin image of the user acquired through the camera (Paragraphs 0059, 0090, and 0477: the detection of skin characteristics including spots on skin using the skin images),
Bandic fails to further teach the device which determines that a cause of a user's dark circle is caused due to pigmentation when a melanin component is detected above a predetermined first component amount in the detected dark circle area, and determines that the cause of the user's dark circle is caused due to vasodilation when a hemoglobin component is detected above a predetermined second component amount in the detected dark circle area.
Kimura teaches that melasma, or dark spots, may be imaged and the position of the dark spot is illustrated based on melanin. Additionally a redness analysis is performed to determine if the melasma is caused by a capillary, or hemoglobin in blood, and if so, the position of melasma considered to be caused by capillary is also illustrated. This allows for the intuitive visual recognition of skin conditions and their associated cause (Paragraphs 0127-0130; Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the visual depiction of dark spots using melanin and capillary analysis to determine if a dark spot is caused by capillary, or hemoglobin in blood, or melanin as taught by Kimura into the device of Bandic in view of Patwardhan further in view of Godavarty because such a visualization of which chromophore is causing the dark spot may allow the user to better understand the underlying cause of the dark spot and seek out appropriate treatment. Bandic already contemplates displaying information relating to the cause of measured conditions to the user (Bandic: paragraph 0419) and such a visualization would provide useful insight to the user into the cause of dark spots which may improve the helpfulness of the device to the user and allow them to make appropriate decisions regarding skin care. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to label the cause of the dark spot as each element, the melanin and/or hemoglobin from the capillaries, that contributes to the pigmentation of to the dark spot. Such a variation would be obvious to try because there are a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success regarding which of the imaging chromophores is designated as the cause of the dark spot. In particular, the device may attribute the cause of the dark spot to be both of the elements shown to contribute to the spot, the element which contributes the most to the dark spot, the element that contributes the least to the dark spot, or whichever element contributes more than some threshold amount to the spot. Thus, there are a finite number of identifiable and predictable solutions with a reasonably expectation of success in regards to what to label as the cause of the dark sport. Thus, Modified Bandic in view of Kimura is considered to at least suggest displaying the cause of a dark spot, or melasma, to be melanin and/or hemoglobin from capillary blood when the respective melanin or redness analysis determines some threshold presence of the chromophore in the dark spot area.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bandic teaches the multi-wavelength skin analysis device of claim 1. Modified Bandic further teaches the device wherein the wrinkle cause determination unit, acquires a first wrinkle image based on a fifth light source having a fifth wavelength among the multi-wavelengths, acquires a second wrinkle image based on a sixth light source having a sixth wavelength that is longer than the fifth wavelength among the multi-wavelengths (Paragraphs 0067 and 0305: acquiring multiple images using single wavelength illumination; Paragraph 0315: imaging wrinkles), and determines wrinkle classification depending on a wrinkle creation layer of the user (Paragraphs 0060, 0217 and 0315: the wrinkle condition assessment and determination of wrinkle stage; fine lines are measured and considered distinct from wrinkles; the images of the epidermis and dermis; Paragraph 0303: the depth of skin structures, including wrinkles are determined), and wherein the first wrinkle image is an epidermal wrinkle image, and the second wrinkle information is a dermal wrinkle image (Paragraphs 0060 and 0315: fine lines are measured and considered distinct from wrinkles; the images of the epidermis and dermis; Paragraph 0303: the imaging at various depths)
Modified Bandic fails to further teach the device which determines a main cause of wrinkle creation corresponding to the wrinkle classification, based on the first wrinkle image and the second wrinkle image.
Du teaches that a lack of moisture in the epidermis may cause wrinkles (Paragraph 0041). Du further teaches that a lack of elasticity in the dermis may also cause wrinkles due to abnormal elastin fibers (Paragraphs 0043 and 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the wrinkle causes taught by Du into the device of Bandic in view of Patwardhan further in view of Godavarty further in view of Kimura because Bandic already contemplates determining a wrinkle depth, or layer, and a wrinkle stage (Bandic: paragraphs 0303 and 0315) as well as providing the user with information related to a cause of the skin condition (Bandic: paragraph 0419) and the teachings of Du would provide the device with a cause to assign to early stage, fine lines and/or shallow wrinkles, which is a lack of moisture (Du: paragraph 0041: moisture in the upper part of the epidermis may cause wrinkles including accelerating the development of fine wrinkles) and a cause to assign for deeper, later stage wrinkle which may be a lack of elasticity in the dermis (Du: paragraphs 0043 and 0060: the degradation of collagen fibers in the dermis may cause wrinkles). Assigning the causes in this manner would be obvious because shallow wrinkles, or fine lines, are known to be associated with the epidermis while deep wrinkles are known to be influenced by the dermis as evidenced by Miyamae paragraph 0003. Including these cause explanations into the device of Bandic in view of Godavarty in view of Patwardhan further in view of Kimura would provide useful insight to the user into the cause of wrinkles which may improve the helpfulness of the device to the user and allow them to make appropriate decisions regarding skin care.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights