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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 302, 304, and 306. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the head analysis device of claims 14 and 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
hair analysis assembly configured to perform the steps recited in claim 1 and further configured to receive a product recommendation and report the product recommendation in claim 3.
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.
The hair analysis assembly is described in the specification by reciting in paragraph [0040] “a hair analysis assembly 104 (“HAA”, which may comprise a hair analysis device 108 - “scanner” - that attaches, preferably removably attaches, to a mobile device 106)”. Therefore for examination purposes the hair analysis assembly will be interpreted as a scanner.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, claims 1 and 15 recite “a first set of head images of a user”. However a user was previously defined, therefore it is unclear if this is the same user or a different user. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as “a first set of head images of the user”. Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation “initiate the capture of a first set of head images”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as “initiate a capture of a first set of head images”. Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation "the first set of user head images". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as "the first set of head images of the user". Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 18, and 25 claims 6, 13, 18, and 25 recite the limitation "comparing the quantities of each of the first set of hair health features in the hair images". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hair images” in the claim. It’s unclear if the hair images are the first set of hair images or different images. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as "comparing the quantities of each of the first set of hair health features in the first set of hair images ". Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claims 9, 13, 21 and 25, claims 9, 13, 21 and 25 recite the limitation "comparing the quantities of each of the first set of scalp health features in the scalp images". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the scalp images” in the claim. It’s unclear if the scalp images are the first set of scalp images or different images. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as "comparing the quantities of each of the first set of scalp health features in the first set of scalp images". Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, claims 10 and 22 recite the limitation "the hair analysis device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as "a hair analysis device".
Regarding claims 14 and 26, claims 14 and 26 recite the limitation "the head analysis device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as "a head analysis device".
Regarding claims 14 and 26, claims 14 and 26 recite the limitation "the head images". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as "the first set of head images".
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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20210366614) and further in view of Punyani (US 20220335614).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Chong discloses a system for head health assessment of a user (Abstract – “a system and method for diagnosis and treatment of hair and scalp”), the system comprising: [claim 1]
a method for head health assessment of a user (Abstract – “a system and method for diagnosis and treatment of hair and scalp”), the method comprising: [claim 15]
a hair analysis assembly (Fig. 1a, mobile device 130a and scanning devices 132a…132n), configured to:
[…] capture of a first set of head images of a user ([0026] – “The devices 132 are configured for scanning the image data”, [0033] – “collected images… head and scalp images”);
obtain the first set of head images ([0026] – “The devices 132 are configured for scanning the image data”, [0033] – “collected images…the parameters that may be determined from head and scalp images are hair loss type, hair density, hair thickness, scalp status, balding status, and pore status”);
send the first set of head images to a trained artificial intelligence system for analysis of the first set of head images for a first set of head health features ([0024] – “a database 120 configured to collect hair and scalp related data from a plurality of IOT devices 130, a processor 140 coupled to an AI engine 150 configured for identifying a characteristic information associated with the captured data and determining identifiers associated with the captured data”);
receive, from the trained artificial intelligence system, a first set of head health feature results comprising the locations and quantities of each of the first set of head health features in each image in the first set of user head images ([0024] – “an AI engine 150 configured for identifying a characteristic information associated with the captured data and determining identifiers associated with the captured data”, [0027] – “the identifiers are location coordinates on the image data”);
apply a first set of head health rules to the first set of head health feature results ([0029] – “The AI engine 150 enables comparison of the data with a pre-existing diagnosis database 120 a for identifying a closest match to determine condition of the hair and scalp”, [0031] – “the AI engine 150 is configured to utilize previous results, score and rating, data matrix, and a plurality of pre-defined problem types”);
arrive at a first set of head health assessments based on the applying ([0033] – “the parameters that may be determined from head and scalp images are hair loss type, hair density, hair thickness, scalp status, balding status, and pore status. The hair loss type may be classified as M shape, or O shape or any other popular shapes”); and
report the first set of head health assessments ([0045] – “The scanning device is further configured to generate a scanning report of the scalp type, condition, hair type, hair loss, bald pattern, hair density, and thickness”).
Conversely Chong does not teach receive an input to initiate the capture of a first set of head images of a user;
However Punyani discloses receive an input to initiate the capture of a first set of head images of a user ([0111] – “the user may select selectable button 512 i for reanalyzing (e.g., either locally at computing device 111 c 1 or remotely at imaging server(s) 102) a new image. Selectable button 512 i may cause user interface 502 to prompt the user to attach for analyzing a new image. Imaging server(s) 102 and/or a user computing device such as user computing device 111 c 1 may receive a new image”);
The disclosure of Punyani is an analogous art considering it is in the field of using an AI model to classify the scalp using images of the scalp.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate receiving an input to initiate capture of images of Punyani to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow for more user control.
Regarding claim 3, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Chong further discloses wherein the hair analysis assembly is further configured to receive a product recommendation based on the first set of head health assessments and report the product recommendation ([0041] – “The display device may be used to display the scanner output, closest results at each stage of the diagnosis process, recommended treatment information, product information among other information”).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 15.
Chong further discloses wherein the first set of head images comprises a first set of hair images (Abstract – “a plurality of data blocks configured to collect hair and scalp related data”, [0045] – “The scanning device is configured to scan a sample (for example, hairs and scalp of customer) from each zone”) and the first set of head health features comprises a first set of hair health features ([0033] – “the parameters that may be determined from head and scalp images are hair loss type, hair density, hair thickness, scalp status, balding status, and pore status”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 15.
Chong further discloses wherein the first set of head images comprises a first set of scalp images (Abstract – “a plurality of data blocks configured to collect hair and scalp related data”, [0045] – “The scanning device is configured to scan a sample (for example, hairs and scalp of customer) from each zone”) and the first set of head health features comprises a first set of scalp health features ([0032] – “the characteristic information includes white spots on hair or scalp, buldge on the scalp, less moisture content, dandruff etc.”, [0033] – “the parameters that may be determined from head and scalp images are hair loss type, hair density, hair thickness, scalp status, balding status, and pore status”).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 7, 15, and 19.
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the first set of scalp health features comprises small flakes, medium and large flakes, flaky hair shaft, flaky scalp oil pooling, gooey hair shaft, and build-up.
However Punyani discloses wherein the first set of scalp health features comprises small flakes, medium and large flakes, flaky hair shaft, flaky scalp oil pooling, gooey hair shaft, and build-up ([0061] – “A “white residue” image classification indicates that a user's scalp skin or hair follicle region has feature(s) (e.g., identifiable within pixel data of a given image) indicating, for example, seborrheic dermatitis, dandruff, and/or other white scales, flakes, or crust on the scalp skin or hair follicle regions of the user's scalp”, [0063] – “indicating scalp plugs (e.g., excess sebum deposits) on the scalp skin or hair follicle regions”, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that other scalp health features that are identifiable in an image can be used to train the AI model to identify the scalp health features).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the scalp health features of Punyani to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would make the scalp based learning model more accurate and useful at detecting, determining, or predicting additional classifications (Punyani [0062]).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 19, and 20.
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the head health rules comprise scalp health rules wherein the scalp health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of scalp health features in the scalp images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of scalp health features.
However Punyani discloses wherein the head health rules comprise scalp health rules wherein the scalp health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of scalp health features in the scalp images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of scalp health features (As seen in Fig. 3 each classification for the grade of white residue, plugs, and acne porphyrin is determined based on a threshold/range of the amount of counts within each image).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the thresholds of Punyani to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to classify grade levels for each feature to determine the severity of the issue.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20210366614) and Punyani (US 20220335614) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitchell (US 20230043674).
Regarding claim 2, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
As recited above Punyani discloses a hair analysis assembly with a scanning device attached to a mobile device. Conversely Chong and Punyani do not teach wherein the hair analysis assembly comprises a mobile device and a hair analysis device that removably attaches to the mobile device.
However Mitchell discloses wherein the hair analysis assembly comprises a mobile device and a hair analysis device that removably attaches to the mobile device ([0007] – “the digital hair images may be captured using an image capture device, for instance…a digital microscope that may be used as a separate device or employed as an attachment to a mobile device”, [0095] – “a USB microscope”).
The disclosure of Mitchell is an analogous art considering it is in the field of using an AI model to provide hair health assessments using images of the head.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Chong to incorporate the image capture device being removably detachable of Mitchell to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because It allows one to use a specific lens while using one’s own mobile device and remove the specific lens when it is no longer needed.
Claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20210366614) and Punyani (US 20220335614) as applied to claims 4 and 16 above, and further in view of Katzarov (US 20200221854).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 4, 15, and 16.
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the first set of hair health features comprises thermal damage, mechanical damage and dryness.
However Katzarov discloses wherein the first set of hair health features comprises thermal damage, mechanical damage and dryness ([0054] – “the smartphone, tablet or the smart mirror may be configured to show the user or the hair stylist additional information such as, for example, information regarding a degree of damage to the hair, dryness of the hair”, [0036] – “a degree of damage could be influenced by a daily hair treatment, hair washing, brushing, a heat treatment, chemical treatments, environmental factors, etc”).
The disclosure of Katzarov is an analogous art considering it is in the field of determining a hair condition using a trained model.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the hair health features of Katzarov to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “damage to hair by mechanical influences may be identified and the damage to the hair can subsequently be corrected by using appropriate care products” (Katzarov [0042]).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Chong, Punyani, and Katzarov disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, and 17
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the head health rules comprise hair health rules wherein the hair health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of hair health features in the hair images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of hair health features.
However Punyani discloses wherein the head health rules comprise […] health rules wherein the […] health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of […] health features in the […] images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of hair health features (As seen in Fig. 3 each classification for the grade of white residue, plugs, and acne porphyrin is determined based on a threshold/range of the amount of counts within each image).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the thresholds of Punyani to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to classify grade levels for each feature to determine the severity of the issue.
Conversely Chong and Punyani do not teach the hair health features as defined in claims 5 and 17.
However Katzarov discloses the hair health features as defined in claims 5 and 17 ([0054] – “the smartphone, tablet or the smart mirror may be configured to show the user or the hair stylist additional information such as, for example, information regarding a degree of damage to the hair, dryness of the hair”, [0036] – “a degree of damage could be influenced by a daily hair treatment, hair washing, brushing, a heat treatment, chemical treatments, environmental factors, etc”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the hair health features of Katzarov to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “damage to hair by mechanical influences may be identified and the damage to the hair can subsequently be corrected by using appropriate care products” (Katzarov [0042]).
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20210366614) and Punyani (US 20220335614) as applied to claims 9 and 21 above, and further in view of Canfield (US 20200383631).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 15, 19, 20, and 21.
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the hair analysis device further comprises a cross polarized light, and wherein the obtaining is with the cross polarized light on for a first subset of the first set of scalp health features.
However Canfield discloses wherein the hair analysis device further comprises a cross polarized light, and wherein the obtaining is with the cross polarized light on for a first subset of the first set of scalp health features (Abstract – “A dermatoscope attachment for contact imaging of the scalp is also disclosed. The attachment may include polarizers enabling cross polarized imaging of the scalp”).
The disclosure of Canfield is an analogous art considering it is in the field of analyzing images of human hair and scalp.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the cross polarized light of Canfield to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “the capture of cross-polarized images…are well suited for imaging hair” (Canfield [0083]).
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20210366614) and Punyani (US 20220335614) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Charraud (US 20190209077).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Chong and Punyani disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 15.
Chong further discloses the first set of head health features comprises a first set of hair health features and a first set of scalp health features ([0032] – “the characteristic information includes white spots on hair or scalp, buldge on the scalp, less moisture content, dandruff etc.”, [0033] – “the parameters that may be determined from head and scalp images are hair loss type, hair density, hair thickness, scalp status, balding status, and pore status”).
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the first set of head images comprises a first set of hair images and a first set of scalp images.
However Charraud discloses wherein the first set of head images comprises a first set of hair images and a first set of scalp images ([0062] – “The camera 181 may capture images of the hair and scalp during a combing operation. Images may be taken at areas of the scalp, or continuously as combing is occurring. In an exemplary aspect, the camera 181 may be used to take a picture of the overall hair and scalp from a proximate distance from the person's head”).
The disclosure of Charraud is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a trained system for classifying the scalp and hair based on images taken of the scalp and hair
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the first and second set of images of Charraud to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to gain information of the health of the scalp as well the entire length of the hair.
Claims 12-14 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20210366614), Punyani (US 20220335614), and Charraud (US 20190209077) as applied to claims 11 and 23 above, and further in view of Katzarov (US 20200221854).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Chong, Punyani, and Charraud disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 11, 15 and 23.
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the first set of hair health features comprises thermal damage, mechanical damage and dryness and the first set of scalp health features comprises small flakes, medium and large flakes, flaky hair shaft, flaky scalp oil pooling, gooey hair shaft, and build-up.
However Punyani discloses the first set of scalp health features comprises small flakes, medium and large flakes, flaky hair shaft, flaky scalp oil pooling, gooey hair shaft, and build-up ([0061] – “A “white residue” image classification indicates that a user's scalp skin or hair follicle region has feature(s) (e.g., identifiable within pixel data of a given image) indicating, for example, seborrheic dermatitis, dandruff, and/or other white scales, flakes, or crust on the scalp skin or hair follicle regions of the user's scalp”, [0063] – “indicating scalp plugs (e.g., excess sebum deposits) on the scalp skin or hair follicle regions”, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that other scalp health features that are identifiable in an image can be used to train the AI model to identify the scalp health features).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the scalp health features of Punyani to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would make the scalp based learning model more accurate and useful at detecting, determining, or predicting additional classifications (Punyani [0062]).
Conversely Chong and Punyani do not teach wherein the first set of hair health features comprises thermal damage, mechanical damage and dryness.
However Katzarov discloses wherein the first set of hair health features comprises thermal damage, mechanical damage and dryness ([0054] – “the smartphone, tablet or the smart mirror may be configured to show the user or the hair stylist additional information such as, for example, information regarding a degree of damage to the hair, dryness of the hair”, [0036] – “a degree of damage could be influenced by a daily hair treatment, hair washing, brushing, a heat treatment, chemical treatments, environmental factors, etc”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the hair health features of Katzarov to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “damage to hair by mechanical influences may be identified and the damage to the hair can subsequently be corrected by using appropriate care products” (Katzarov [0042]).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Chong, Punyani, Charraud, and Katzarov disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 23 and 24.
Conversely Chong does not teach wherein the head health rules comprise hair health rules, wherein the hair health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of hair health features in the hair images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of hair health features, and scalp health rules wherein the scalp health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of scalp health features in the scalp images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of scalp health features.
However Punyani discloses wherein the head health rules comprise […] health rules, wherein the […] health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of […] health features in the […] images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of hair health features (As seen in Fig. 3 each classification for the grade of white residue, plugs, and acne porphyrin is determined based on a threshold/range of the amount of counts within each image) and scalp health rules wherein the scalp health rules comprise comparing the quantities of each of the first set of scalp health features in the scalp images to a configurable threshold for each of the first set of scalp health features (As seen in Fig. 3 each classification for the grade of white residue, plugs, and acne porphyrin is determined based on a threshold/range of the amount of counts within each image).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the thresholds of Punyani to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to classify grade levels for each feature to determine the severity of the issue.
Conversely Chong and Punyani do not teach the hair health features as defined in claims 12 and 24.
However Katzarov discloses the hair health features as defined in claims 12 and 24 ([0054] – “the smartphone, tablet or the smart mirror may be configured to show the user or the hair stylist additional information such as, for example, information regarding a degree of damage to the hair, dryness of the hair”, [0036] – “a degree of damage could be influenced by a daily hair treatment, hair washing, brushing, a heat treatment, chemical treatments, environmental factors, etc”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Chong to incorporate the hair health features of Katzarov to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “damage to hair by mechanical influences may be identified and the damage to the hair can subsequently be corrected by using appropriate care products” (Katzarov [0042]).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, Chong, Punyani, Charraud, and Katzarov disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, 23, 24, and 25.
Chong further discloses wherein the obtaining further comprises preparing the head analysis device for the head images to be obtained and head characteristics to be assessed by establishing a capabilities setup therefor ([0044] – “The scanner may have interchangeable lens modules that may be irremovably attached to the scanner. Different stages of scanning process may require different levels of magnifying lens”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797