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 .
Status of Claims
Amended claims 1-20 (filed on 02/28/2025) are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 02/28/2025) is a national stage of PCT/EP2023/073906 (filed on 08/31/2023) filed under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on EP22193405.2 filed on 09/01/2022. Instant claims 1-20 are adequately supported in EP22193405.2 so as to receive an instant application effective filing date of 09/01/2022. All prior art will be evaluated with respect to this date.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 9: The limitation “comparing a difference between the second condition of the structure of the hair and the first condition of the structure of the hair” is redundant because a difference is only one value so there is nothing to compare (could use “comparing between” or “determining a difference between”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 method claim language makes it unclear whether “the application of a first hair treatment” is required. It is unclear whether treatment application is actually a claimed step or merely the background against which subsequent measurements are made. Claim 1 includes:
• “determining a first hair treatment based on the determined first condition, wherein the first hair treatment is selected from a database of hair treatments observed to alter the condition of the structure of hair, the first hair treatment being associated in the database to an expected condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment to the hair”
• “determining a second condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment”
There are situations where the first treatment is determined according to the method, but the user decides not to apply the treatment and therefore prevents the method from proceeding further. This could support an interpretation of the current claims as containing contingent limitations under MPEP 2111.04.II (“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”). In this case, the limitations which are a determination after the first treatment is applied could be interpreted as contingent on the first treatment being applied. The first treatment is currently not explicitly required, but the context of the claims suggests the Applicant might assume the first treatment is performed (hence all the limitations are still considered in the prior art rejections according to MPEP 2143.03(I)).
Claim 10: “The additional contribution” lacks an antecedent basis.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-13 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claims.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (a mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1
The invention in claims 1-20 is to a statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method or non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product for determining a customized hair treatment for improving the condition of the structure of the hair.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding Claim 1, the following limitations could be performed by the human mind:
• “determining a first condition of the structure of the hair of the user prior to applying a hair treatment”;
• “determining a first hair treatment based on the determined first condition, wherein the first hair treatment is selected from a database of hair treatments observed to alter the condition of the structure of hair, the first hair treatment being associated in the database to an expected condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment to the hair”;
• “determining a second condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment”;
• “determining a difference between the expected condition of the structure of the hair and the second condition of the structure of the hair”;
• “determining a second hair treatment based on the second condition of the structure of the hair and based on the determined difference”
Regarding Claim 14, the following limitations could be performed by the human mind:
• “determining a first condition of the structure of the hair of the user prior to applying a hair treatment”;
• “determining a first hair treatment based on the determined first condition, wherein the first hair treatment is selected from a database of hair treatments observed to alter the condition of the structure of hair, the first hair treatment being associated in the database to an expected condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment to the hair”;
• “determining a second condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment”;
• “determining a difference between the expected condition of the structure of the hair and the second condition of the structure of the hair”;
• “determining a second hair treatment based on the second condition of the structure of the hair and based on the determined difference”
Step 2A, Prong Two
For the independent claim 1 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Additional elements from claim 1 include a database (with the implication of a computerized system) and a mechanism to acquire specific measurements of the hair (which could be a sensor depending on the type of test). The database of hair treatments would be a generic computer structure for performing generic computer functions, and the evaluation of conditions of the hair would be an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Dependent claims 2-13 further describe making determinations, which could be mental processes, of hair treatments.
Notably, the application of the actual hair treatment(s) is not required in the method in claims 1-13.
For the independent claim 14 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Additional elements from claim 14 include a database as part of a computerized system and a mechanism to acquire specific measurements of the hair (which could be a sensor depending on the type of test). The database of hair treatments and the computer program product would be generic computer structures for performing generic computer functions, and the evaluation of conditions of the hair would be an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Dependent claims 15-20 further describe making determinations, which could be mental processes, of hair treatments.
Notably, the application of the actual hair treatment(s) is not required in claims 14-20.
Step 2B
For limitations from Step 2A Prong One, independent claims 1 and 14 do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Both the method and computer program (to implement the method) are merely a determination of changes in hair properties where the analysis occurs on a generic computer program with a database and uses generic sensors to determine conditions of the hair. The claimed invention is interpreted as a determination of which hair treatment to apply based on data samples, but the actual hair treatment is not required as part of the method or computer program.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception, as abstract ideas (mental processes), without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Katzarov (US 2020/0221854 A1) in view of Mathiaszyk (US 2020/0146413 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Katzarov discloses a method for determining a customized hair treatment for improving a condition of the structure of hair ([0008] – method for optimizing hair treatments; Fig. 5, [0127]), the method comprising:
• determining a first condition of the structure of the hair of the user prior to applying a hair treatment ([0127] – “capturing, at 510, at least one item of hair condition information for a user before and after a hair treatment by employing at least one sensor”);
• determining a first hair treatment based on the determined first condition ([0063] – the user can be recommended a personalized treatment to correct the detected at least hair shade or one degree of damage to the hair), wherein the first hair treatment is selected from a database ([0028] – there is a database of user-specific hair information and hair treatment product information) of hair treatments observed to alter the condition of the structure of hair ([0063-0064] – treatment selected based on a group of potential treatments/products available), the first hair treatment being associated in the database to an expected condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment to the hair ([0127] – “a predicted item of hair condition information based on the determined hair condition information for the user before the hair treatment”);
• determining a second condition of the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment ([0127] – “capturing, at 510, at least one item of hair condition information for a user before and after a hair treatment by employing at least one sensor”);
• determining a difference between the expected condition of the structure of the hair and the second condition of the structure of the hair ([0127] – “Furthermore, the method comprises capturing, at 520, a discrepancy between a predicted item of hair condition information based on the determined hair condition information for the user before the hair treatment and the determined hair condition information for the user after the hair”); and
• wherein the first condition, the expected condition, and the second condition are at least one of a degree of hair damage, a moisture content of hair, a presence of external chemical compound on or in hair, a type of chemical compound on or in hair, or a property of a constituent of hair ([0036] – “the hair condition information comprises a degree of damage to the hair and/or
a hair shade).
However, Katzarov does not disclose determining a second hair treatment based on the second condition of the structure of the hair and based on the determined difference.
Mathiaszyk, in the same field of determining a hair treatment and assessing the effect of the treatment via sensor information ([0014]), teaches a plurality of sensors (comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment sensor data) can be arranged so the user can receive feedback as to what further treatments are necessary ([0052]). Mathiaszyk teaches the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]). This iterative approach is described in “a matching of the cosmetic treatment with individualized consumer data facilitates an iterative cosmetic treatment cycle, improves an outcome of the cosmetic treatment, and/or increases a user's motivation to continue the treatment” ([0133]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s treatment assessment of the discrepancy between a predicted and actual hair condition following treatment by incorporating use of this discrepancy as feedback for determining what additional treatments are necessary in Mathiaszyk. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Mathiaszyk discuss recommending hair treatments and analyzing hair condition in response to treatments and Mathiaszyk provides a solution/improvement of a determination of whether subsequent treatments are necessary based on whether the first treatment met expectations, which improves the overall outcome of the treatment and enables greater compliance with and justification of further treatments. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Katzarov by incorporating use of a discrepancy between expected and actual treatment outcomes as feedback for determining whether additional treatments are necessary, such as presented in Mathiaszyk.
Regarding Claim 3, the method according to Claim 1 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses the capturing or hair condition information before and after a hair treatment, the determined difference, using at least one sensor ([0127]). The counseling system uses a database which incorporates the difference in hair condition after a treatment ([0026]) where the database is used to provide optimal treatment based on the response of other users to treatment ([0068]). However, Katzarov does not disclose the estimation of a correction in a second hair treatment based on the determined difference in:
• determining the second hair treatment is further based on a correction applied in the database to the observed effects of hair treatments on altering the condition of the structure of hair from different starting conditions of the structure of hair, and
• wherein the correction is estimated based on the determined difference.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Mathiaszyk yields the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]). This iterative approach is described in “a matching of the cosmetic treatment with individualized consumer data facilitates an iterative cosmetic treatment cycle, improves an outcome of the cosmetic treatment, and/or increases a user's motivation to continue the treatment” ([0133]). The hair condition is compared with stored reference data in a database where the closest reference data is used to predict the response of the user’s hair to a treatment ([0119-0122]).
Regarding Claim 12, the method according to Claim 1 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses further comprising:
•obtaining a user input regarding a desired target hair condition ([0048], [0058] – user can select a desired hair shade and order a specific hair treatment); and
•determining the hair treatments based on further based on the obtained user input ([0063] – recommendation of a product based on the user’s desired hair shade).
However, Katzarov does not disclose the determination of a first hair treatment and the second hair treatment.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Mathiaszyk yields the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]) to determine what future treatments are necessary ([0052]). This iterative approach is described in “a matching of the cosmetic treatment with individualized consumer data facilitates an iterative cosmetic treatment cycle, improves an outcome of the cosmetic treatment, and/or increases a user's motivation to continue the treatment” ([0133]).
Regarding Claim 13, the method according to Claim 1 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses the capturing or hair condition information before and after a hair treatment, the determined difference, using at least one sensor ([0127]). The counseling system uses a database which incorporates the difference in hair condition after a treatment ([0026]) where the database is used to provide optimal treatment based on the response of other users to treatment ([0068]). However, Katzarov does not disclose
• determining, based on the determined first condition, a customized first hair treatment comprising a first mixture of hair treatment products, wherein the database stores information relating to each hair treatment product of the first mixture; and
• determining, based on the determined second condition and on the determined difference, a customized second treatment comprising a second mixture of hair treatment products, wherein the database stores information relating to each hair treatment product of the second mixture.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Mathiaszyk yields the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]). This results in an iterative approach where the comparison is used to determine additional treatments. Mathiaszyk describes personalized hair product treatments made up of a mixture of ingredients to achieve optimal results for that particular use and hair condition ([0109-0113]). The hair condition is compared with stored reference data in a database where the closest reference data is used to predict the response of the user’s hair to a treatment, particular the use of a product ([0119-0122]).
Regarding Claim 14, Katzarov discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product comprising program instructions ([0031], [0055]) configured to implement a method for determining a customized hair treatment for improving the condition of a structure of hair ([0008] – method for optimizing hair treatments; Fig. 5, [0127]), the method comprising:
• determining a first condition of the structure of hair prior to applying a hair treatment ([0127] – “capturing, at 510, at least one item of hair condition information for a user before and after a hair treatment by employing at least one sensor”);
• determining a first hair treatment based on the determined first condition ([0063] - the user can be recommended a personalized treatment to correct the detected at least one degree of damage to the hair), wherein the first hair treatment is selected from a database ([0028] – there is a database of user-specific hair information and hair treatment product information) of hair treatments observed to alter the condition of the structure of hair ([0063-0064] – treatment selected based on a group of potential treatments/products available), the first hair treatment being associated in the database to an expected condition for the structure of the hair after application of the first hair treatment to the hair ([0127] – a predicted item of hair condition information based on the determined hair condition information for the user before the hair treatment”);
• determining a second condition of the hair after application of the first hair treatment ([0127]);
• determining a difference between the expected condition of the structure of the hair and the second condition of the structure of the hair ([0127]);
wherein the first condition, the expected condition, and the second condition are at least one of a degree of hair damage, a moisture content of hair, a presence of external chemical compound on or in hair, a type of chemical compound on or in hair, or a property of a constituent of hair ([0036] – “the hair condition information comprises a degree of damage to the hair and/or a hair shade).
However, Katzarov does not disclose determining a second hair treatment based on the second condition of the structure of the hair and based on the determined difference.
Mathiaszyk, in the same field of determining a hair treatment and assessing the effect of the treatment via sensor information ([0014]), teaches a plurality of sensors (comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment sensor data) can be arranged so the user can receive feedback as to what further treatments are necessary ([0052]). Mathiaszyk teaches the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]). This iterative approach is described in “a matching of the cosmetic treatment with individualized consumer data facilitates an iterative cosmetic treatment cycle, improves an outcome of the cosmetic treatment, and/or increases a user's motivation to continue the treatment” ([0133]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s treatment assessment of the discrepancy between a predicted and actual hair condition following treatment by incorporating use of this discrepancy as feedback for determining what additional treatments are necessary in Mathiaszyk. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Mathiaszyk discuss recommending hair treatments and analyzing hair condition in response to treatments and Mathiaszyk provides a solution/improvement of a determination of whether subsequent treatments are necessary based on whether the first treatment met expectations, which improves the overall outcome of the treatment and enables greater compliance with and justification of further treatments. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Katzarov by incorporating use of a discrepancy between expected and actual treatment outcomes as feedback for determining whether additional treatments are necessary, such as presented in Mathiaszyk.
Regarding Claim 20, the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 14 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses further comprising:
•obtaining a user input regarding a desired target hair condition ([0048], [0058] – user can select a desired hair shade and order a specific hair treatment); and
•determining the hair treatments based on further based on the obtained user input ([0063] – recommendation of a product based on the user’s desired hair shade).
However, Katzarov does not disclose the determination of a first hair treatment and the second hair treatment.
As stated in claim 14, the proposed combination with Mathiaszyk yields the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]) to determine what future treatments are necessary ([0052]). This iterative approach is described in “a matching of the cosmetic treatment with individualized consumer data facilitates an iterative cosmetic treatment cycle, improves an outcome of the cosmetic treatment, and/or increases a user's motivation to continue the treatment” ([0133]).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Katzarov (US 2020/0221854 A1) in view of Mathiaszyk (US 2020/0146413 A1) and Knuebel (US 2018/0357390 A1), referred to as Knuebel ‘390.
Regarding Claim 2, the method according to Claim 1 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses further comprising:
• obtaining a target hair condition ([0127] – “capturing, at 510, at least one item of hair condition information for a user before and after a hair treatment by employing at least one sensor”). A number of hair shades are stored in memory to determine the closest hair shade to the pretreatment hair and the desired color and used to predict the response to a treatment ([0060-0061]).
However, Katzarov does not disclose:
• wherein determining the first hair treatment is further based on the obtained target hair condition such that the first hair treatment is associated in the database to an expected condition of the structure of the hair of the user differing from the target hair condition by less than a predetermined amount
Knuebel ‘390, in the same field of endeavor of assessing the structure of hair to provide information on hair treatments ([0006]), teaches “preparing a tolerance range, wherein the tolerance range is a color difference from the desired hair color which is tolerated, wherein determination of the hair coloring agent for coloring of hair in the desired hair color is also based on the tolerance range” (claim 6). A predictive analysis is performed to view achievable colors given the pre-treatment hair ([0039]), where the treatments are chosen based on a predicted result being within the tolerances ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s prediction of a hair treatment result by incorporating the determination of whether the predicted result is within a tolerance of the desired hair shade in Knuebel ‘390. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Knuebel ‘390 discuss a determination of a hair product based on characterizing the hair and Knuebel ‘390 provides a solution/improvement of a test to only select treatments which will produce results within a certain tolerance (in order to enhance customer satisfaction with the resulting hair color). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Katzarov by incorporating the determination of whether the predicted result is within a tolerance of the desired hair shade in Knuebel ‘390.
Regarding Claim 15, the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 14 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses wherein the method further comprises:
• obtaining a target hair condition ([0127] – “capturing, at 510, at least one item of hair condition information for a user before and after a hair treatment by employing at least one sensor”). A number of hair shades are stored in memory to determine the closest hair shade to the pretreatment hair and the desired color and used to predict the response to a treatment ([0060-0061]).
However, Katzarov does not disclose:
• wherein determining the first hair treatment is further based on the obtained target hair condition such that the first hair treatment is associated in the database to an expected condition of the structure of the hair of the user differing from the target hair condition by less than a predetermined amount
Knuebel ‘390, in the same field of endeavor of assessing the structure of hair to provide information on hair treatments ([0006]), teaches “preparing a tolerance range, wherein the tolerance range is a color difference from the desired hair color which is tolerated, wherein determination of the hair coloring agent for coloring of hair in the desired hair color is also based on the tolerance range” (claim 6). A predictive analysis is performed to view achievable colors given the pre-treatment hair ([0039]), where the treatments are chosen based on a predicted result being within the tolerances ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s prediction of a hair treatment result by incorporating the determination of whether the predicted result is within a tolerance of the desired hair shade in Knuebel ‘390. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Knuebel ‘390 discuss a determination of a hair product based on characterizing the hair and Knuebel ‘390 provides a solution/improvement of a test to only select treatments which will produce results within a certain tolerance (in order to enhance customer satisfaction with the resulting hair color). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Katzarov by incorporating the determination of whether the predicted result is within a tolerance of the desired hair shade in Knuebel ‘390.
Claims 4-6 and 16-18 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Katzarov (US 2020/0221854 A1) in view of Mathiaszyk (US 2020/0146413 A1) and Knuebel (US 2021/0204865 A1), referred to as Knuebel ‘865.
Regarding Claim 4, the method according to Claim 1 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses comparing the recorded signal with a first calibration model; and determining a condition of the structure of the hair based on the comparison ([0045] - a color calibration device which uses a camera to measure a strand of hair to determine the exact shade of hair before and after a treatment via comparison with stored color information). Near-infrared spectroscopy, i.e. light, can be applied to the hair sample to determine “information regarding elasticity, degree of elongation, stiffness, cross sectional area, shape or density of the hair” ([0041]). However, Katzarov does not connect the near-infrared spectroscopy result with a calibration signal to determine those properties in wherein the first condition, the expected condition, and the second condition are determined using a method comprising:
• while exposing a hair sample of the hair to at least one of light, stress, elongation, or heat, recording a signal indicative of the response to the at least one of light, stress, elongation, or heat.
Knuebel ‘865, in the same field of endeavor of assessing the structure of hair to provide information on hair treatments ([0061]), teaches the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of a hair sample using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s NIRS test by incorporating the NIRS result’s comparison with a calibration model to determine elongation of the hair in Knuebel ‘865. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Knuebel ‘865 discuss a determination of hair properties via NIRS and Knuebel ‘865 provides a solution/improvement with a calibration to more exactly determine elongation from NIRS readings. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Katzarov by incorporating the calibration model for assessing NIRS results in Knuebel ‘865.
Regarding Claim 5, the method according to Claim 4 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk and Knuebel ‘865, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses a color calibration device which uses a camera to measure a strand of hair to determine the exact shade of hair before and after a treatment via comparison with stored color information ([0045]). Near-infrared spectroscopy, i.e. light, can be applied to the hair sample to determine “information regarding elasticity, degree of elongation, stiffness, cross sectional area, shape or density of the hair” ([0041]). However, Katzarov does not disclose wherein the first calibration model is obtained by:
• measuring properties of constituents of a plurality of calibration hair samples;
• determining a condition of the structure of the plurality of calibration hair samples based on the properties of the constituents of the plurality of calibration hair samples;
• exposing each of the plurality of calibration hair samples to at least one of light, stress, elongation, or heat;
• recording a signal indicative of the response to the at least one of light, stress, elongation or heat from each calibration hair sample; and
• establishing the first calibration model by determining a correlation between the recorded signals and the determined condition of the structure of the plurality of calibration hair samples.
As stated in claim 4, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘865 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of hair samples using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]) where [0030] and [0041] explicitly state the use of multiple samples. This elongation is understood as being quantified in terms of a stress-strain relationship (Fig. 6, [0143]), which would be understood as a constituent element of the hair rather than an overall property of hair. The absorption readings are used to determine the elongation of hair samples ([0021], Fig. 5, [0141-0142]). The calibration model is the correlation between the absorption readings and elongation ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 6, the method according to Claim 5 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk and Knubel ‘865, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov does not disclose wherein measuring the properties of the constituents of the plurality of calibration hair samples comprises at least one of differential scanning calorimetry applied to the plurality of calibration hair samples, mass spectrometry of the plurality of calibration hair samples, electron microscopy of the plurality of calibration hair samples, stress-strain measurements of the plurality of calibration hair samples, fatigue measurements of the plurality of calibration hair samples, elongation measurements of the plurality of calibration hair samples, hair hydrophobicity of the plurality of calibration hair samples, swelling detection of the plurality of calibration hair samples, measurements of non-linear optical effects arising in the plurality of calibration hair samples, attenuated total reflectance of the plurality of calibration hair samples, or Fourier Transform Interferometry of the plurality of calibration hair samples. The use of the “or” is interpreted as only requiring one measure.
As stated in claim 4, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘865 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of a hair sample using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]). This elongation is understood as being quantified in terms of a stress-strain relationship (Fig. 6, [0143]). The absorption readings are used to determine the elongation of hair samples ([0021], Fig. 5, [0141-0142]).
Regarding Claim 16, the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 14 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses comparing the recorded signal with a first calibration model; and determining a condition of the structure of the hair based on the comparison ([0045] - a color calibration device which uses a camera to measure a strand of hair to determine the exact shade of hair before and after a treatment via comparison with stored color information). Near-infrared spectroscopy, i.e. light, can be applied to the hair sample to determine “information regarding elasticity, degree of elongation, stiffness, cross sectional area, shape or density of the hair” ([0041]). However, Katzarov does not connect the near-infrared spectroscopy result with a calibration signal to determine those properties in wherein the first condition, the expected condition, and the second condition are determined using a method comprising:
• while exposing a hair sample of the hair to at least one of light, stress, elongation, or heat, recording a signal indicative of the response to the at least one of light, stress, elongation, or heat.
Knuebel ‘865, in the same field of endeavor of assessing the structure of hair to provide information on hair treatments ([0061]), teaches the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of a hair sample using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s NIRS test by incorporating the NIRS result comparison with a calibration model to determine elongation of the hair in Knuebel ‘865. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Knuebel ‘865 discuss a determination of hair properties via NIRS and Knuebel ‘865 provides a solution/improvement with a calibration to more exactly determine elongation from NIRS readings. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Katzarov by incorporating the calibration model for assessing NIRS results in Knuebel ‘865.
Regarding Claim 17, the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 16 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk and Knubel ‘865, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses a color calibration device which uses a camera to measure a strand of hair to determine the exact shade of hair before and after a treatment via comparison with stored color information ([0045]). Near-infrared spectroscopy, i.e. light, can be applied to the hair sample to determine “information regarding elasticity, degree of elongation, stiffness, cross sectional area, shape or density of the hair” ([0041]). However, Katzarov does not disclose wherein the first calibration model is obtained by:
• measuring properties of constituents of a plurality of calibration hair samples;
• determining a condition of the structure of the plurality of calibration hair samples based on the properties of the constituents of the plurality of calibration hair samples;
• exposing each of the plurality of calibration hair samples to at least one of light, stress, elongation, or heat;
• recording a signal indicative of the response to the at least one of light, stress, elongation or heat from each calibration hair sample; and
• establishing the first calibration model by determining a correlation between the recorded signals and the determined condition of the structure of the plurality of calibration hair samples.
As stated in claim 16, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘865 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of hair samples using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]) where [0030] and [0041] explicitly state the use of multiple samples. This elongation is understood as being quantified in terms of a stress-strain relationship (Fig. 6, [0143]), which would be understood as a constituent element of the hair rather than an overall property of hair. The absorption readings are used to determine the elongation of hair samples ([0021], Fig. 5, [0141-0142]). The calibration model is the correlation between the absorption readings and elongation ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 18, the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 17 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk and Knubel ‘865, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov does not disclose wherein measuring the properties of the constituents of the plurality of calibration hair samples comprises at least one of differential scanning calorimetry applied to the plurality of calibration hair samples, mass spectrometry of the plurality of calibration hair samples, electron microscopy of the plurality of calibration hair samples, stress-strain measurements of the plurality of calibration hair samples, fatigue measurements of the plurality of calibration hair samples, elongation measurements of the plurality of calibration hair samples, hair hydrophobicity of the plurality of calibration hair samples, swelling detection of the plurality of calibration hair samples, measurements of non-linear optical effects arising in the plurality of calibration hair samples, attenuated total reflectance of the plurality of calibration hair samples, or Fourier Transform Interferometry of the plurality of calibration hair samples. The use of the “or” is interpreted as only requiring one measure.
As stated in claim 16, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘865 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of a hair sample using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]). This elongation is understood as being quantified in terms of a stress-strain relationship (Fig. 6, [0143]). The absorption readings are used to determine the elongation of hair samples ([0021], Fig. 5, [0141-0142]).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Katzarov (US 2020/0221854 A1) in view of Mathiaszyk (US 2020/0146413 A1), Knuebel ‘865 (US 2021/0204865 A1), and Knuebel (US 2019/0307392 A1), referred to as Knuebel ‘392.
Regarding Claim 7, the method according to Claim 5 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk and Knubel ‘865, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses a NIRS sensor used to measure damage to the hair ([0039]).
Katzarov does not disclose further comprising:
• obtaining a second calibration model that establishes a correlation between a determined degree of hair damage of the plurality of calibration hair samples and signals indicative of the response to the at least one of light, stress, elongation or heat from each calibration hair sample.
Knuebel ‘392, in the same field of endeavor of assessing the properties of hair to provide information on hair treatments ([0017]), teaches the use of an NIRS sensor to determine “a correlation between the near-infrared and/or infrared spectra of the samples (calibration spectra) and the amino acid oxidation product content of the samples which has been determined by employing an independent chromatographic or colorimetric method” ([0031]). Hair samples are tested to build a calibration model assigning degrees of damage to the calibration spectra ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s NIRS test by incorporating the NIRS result comparison with a calibration model to determine the degree of hair damage in Knuebel ‘392. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Knuebel ‘392 discuss a determination of hair damage via NIRS and Knuebel ‘392 provides a solution/improvement with a calibration to more exactly determine hair damage from NIRS readings. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Katzarov by incorporating the calibration model for assessing NIRS results in Knuebel ‘392.
Regarding Claim 8, the method according to Claim 7 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, Knubel ‘865, and Knubel ‘392 as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses near-infrared spectroscopy, i.e. light, can be applied to the hair sample to determine the degree of hair damage ([0039]). Katzarov does not disclose further comprising comparing the signal indicative of the response to the at least one of light, stress, elongation, or heat to the second calibration model to determine a degree of hair damage of the hair.
As stated in claim 7, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘392 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine “a correlation between the near-infrared and/or infrared spectra of the samples (calibration spectra) and the amino acid oxidation product content of the samples which has been determined by employing an independent chromatographic or colorimetric method” ([0031]). Hair samples are tested to build a calibration model assigning degrees of damage to the calibration spectra ([0031]).
Regarding Claim 9, the method according to Claim 7 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, Knubel ‘865, and Knubel ‘392 as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses the capturing or hair condition information before and after a hair treatment, the determined difference, using at least one sensor ([0127]) to compute the extent of change caused by the first treatment ([0072-0073]). Near-infrared spectroscopy, i.e. light, can be applied to the hair sample to determine “information regarding elasticity, degree of elongation, stiffness, cross sectional area, shape or density of the hair” ([0041]). However, Katzarov does not disclose further comprising:
• comparing a difference between the second condition of the structure of the hair and the first condition of the structure of the hair; and
• determining, based on the comparison, a contribution of the application of the first hair treatment to the condition of the structure of the hair.
As stated in claim 4, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘865 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of a hair sample using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]). This elongation is understood as being quantified in terms of a stress-strain relationship (Fig. 6, [0143]). The absorption readings are used to determine the elongation of hair samples ([0021], Fig. 5, [0141-0142]). Knuebel ‘865 is concerned with estimating the effect of the of treatments in terms of changes to degrees of elongation ([0105]), where it would have been obvious to use elongation assessed via NIRS before and after treatment in Katzarov to define the effectiveness of treatment alternatively in terms of a behavioral property of the hair.
Regarding Claim 10, the method according to Claim 7 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, Knubel ‘865, and Knubel ‘392 as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses the capturing of hair condition information before and after a hair treatment, the determined difference, using at least one sensor ([0127]) to compute the extent of change caused by the first treatment ([0072-0073]). Katzarov discloses the instant limitation “determining a value of the condition of the structure of the hair and a value of the degree of hair damage after application of the first hair treatment” ([0027]) with near-infrared spectroscopy, i.e. light, which can be applied to the hair sample to determine “information regarding elasticity, degree of elongation, stiffness, cross sectional area, shape or density of the hair” ([0041]) and damage to the hair ([0040]). Katzarov does not disclose further comprising:
• determining a relationship between values of the condition of the structure of the hair obtained using the first calibration model and values of the degree of hair damage obtained using the second calibration model;
• using the determined relationship to transform the value of the degree of hair damage into a corresponding equivalent value of the condition of the structure of the hair; and
• subtracting from the determined value of the condition of the structure of the hair the corresponding equivalent value to estimate the additional contribution of the application of the first hair treatment on the value of the condition of the structure of the hair.
As stated in claim 7, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘392 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine “a correlation between the near-infrared and/or infrared spectra of the samples (calibration spectra) and the amino acid oxidation product content of the samples which has been determined by employing an independent chromatographic or colorimetric method” ([0031]). Hair samples are tested to build a calibration model assigning degrees of damage to the calibration spectra ([0031]).
As stated in claim 4, the proposed combination with Knuebel ‘865 yields the use of an NIRS sensor to determine the elongation of a hair sample using a calibration associating the absorption spectrum with elongation ([0023]). This elongation is understood as being quantified in terms of a stress-strain relationship (Fig. 6, [0143]). The absorption readings are used to determine the elongation of hair samples ([0021], Fig. 5, [0141-0142]). Knuebel ‘865 also states the incorporation of damage values, using independent analytical methods, into the calibration model used to associate an NIRS signal with elongation ([0057]). This establishes an association between elongation and damage where the calibration allows conversion between the two terms. Both changes in damage and elongation have been established in Knuebel ‘392 and Knuebel ‘865 as assessments of the effects of hair treatments.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Katzarov (US 2020/0221854 A1) in view of Mathiaszyk (US 2020/0146413 A1) and Shami (US 2018/0125206 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the method according to Claim 1 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses “a history of degrees of damage to the hair and hair shades relating to a user may be generated. Based on the information about the hair of each individual user stored over a certain time period, a treatment response for the hair over that time may be obtained” ([0070]). However, this is primarily related to sensor data and does not originate with the user and Katzarov does not disclose further comprising:
• obtaining a user input regarding previous hair treatments applied to the hair; and
• determining the first hair treatment and the second hair treatment further based on the obtained user input.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Mathiaszyk yields the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]). This iterative approach is described in “a matching of the cosmetic treatment with individualized consumer data facilitates an iterative cosmetic treatment cycle, improves an outcome of the cosmetic treatment, and/or increases a user's motivation to continue the treatment” ([0133]).
Shami, in the same field of endeavor of a method for determining a hair treatment and dispensing the determined hair product ([0012]), teaches previous hair treatments are added via a user input interface ([0031]). This information collected from the user is entered into an algorithm which determines the hair treatment to be applied ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s determination of a hair treatment by incorporating the entering of previous hair treatments by the user in Shami. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Shami discuss a determination of a hair product based on characterizing the hair and Shami provides a solution/improvement to account for the effects remaining from previous hair treatments. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Katzarov by incorporating the entering of previous hair treatments by the user in Shami.
Regarding Claim 19, the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 14 is obvious over Katzarov in view of Mathiaszyk, as indicated hereinabove. Katzarov discloses “a history of degrees of damage to the hair and hair shades relating to a user may be generated. Based on the information about the hair of each individual user stored over a certain time period, a treatment response for the hair over that time may be obtained” ([0070]). However, this is primarily related to sensor data and does not originate with the user and Katzarov does not disclose further comprising:
• obtaining a user input regarding previous hair treatments applied to the hair; and
• determining the first hair treatment and the second hair treatment further based on the obtained user input.
As stated in claim 14, the proposed combination with Mathiaszyk yields the storage of hair treatment data to facilitate a comparison of hair treatment information at different time points, e.g. comparing before and after a treatment ([0127]). This iterative approach is described in “a matching of the cosmetic treatment with individualized consumer data facilitates an iterative cosmetic treatment cycle, improves an outcome of the cosmetic treatment, and/or increases a user's motivation to continue the treatment” ([0133]).
Shami, in the same field of endeavor of determining a hair treatment and dispensing the determined hair product ([0012]), teaches previous hair treatments as added via a user input interface ([0031]). This information collected from the user is entered into an algorithm which determines the hair treatment to be applied ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Katzarov’s determination of a hair treatment by incorporating the entering of previous hair treatments by the user in Shami. This would have been obvious because both Katzarov and Shami discuss a determination of a hair product based on characterizing the hair and Shami provides a solution/improvement to account for the effects remaining from previous hair treatments. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Katzarov by incorporating the entering of previous hair treatments by the user in Shami.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights