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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 contains multiple sentences and references an equation as if it were an independent claim from which the claim depends. The Examiner recommends the following (or similar) amendments:
[Claim 4] The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of generating and providing recipe information for manufacturing a user-customized product with respect to the diagnosis result further includes the step of recommending purchase of a user-customized product corresponding to the recipe information, where a product recommended at the step of recommending purchase of a user-customized product is determined by the equation:
1
3
[
(
F
p
+
P
p
+
W
p
+
C
p
+
W
p
+
O
p
6
×
0.56
)
+
(
P
S
×
0.34
)
+
(
P
S
d
x
0.1
)
];
wherein Fp represents flush percentage; Pp represent pore percentage, Wp represents wrinkle percentage, Cp represents pigment percentage, Op represents oil and moisture percentage, Sp represents a sensitivity percentage, PS represents a purchase satisfaction survey value, and PSd represents a big data label purchase satisfaction survey value.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 are directed to providing a customized product, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-6 recite a method and at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which a product is customized for a user, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
collecting, from a user, survey response information and an image in response to survey request information and image request information provided to the user in order to diagnose any one or more among the skin, scalp, health condition, and preference of the user;
generating a result of diagnosing any one or more among the skin, scalp, health condition, and preference of the user on the basis of the survey response information and the image;
generating and providing recipe information for manufacturing a user-customized product with respect to the diagnosis result; and
transmitting, a user-customized product manufacturing instruction signal including the recipe information on the basis of a user-customized product purchase signal received from the user, wherein the recipe information includes a raw material recommended by a diagnosis code including the diagnosis result and a raw material code including raw material information.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to make a product recommendation and between a consumer and business to aid in the production of the recommended product. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
to a product manufacturing device.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [212]-[213] indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6
Dependent claims 2-6 serve to merely embellish the abstract idea of claim 1,
without any further description or limitation of any additional elements. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 sets forth:
wherein the image is transmitted to an artificial intelligence service, and the diagnosis result is generated using a result generated by analysis of the artificial intelligence.
Such a recitation does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Delapenha et al. (US 20240049869 A1, hereinafter Delapenha).
Regarding Claim 1
Delapenha discloses a method for providing a customized product, the method comprising the steps of:
collecting, from a user, survey response information and an image in response to survey request information and image request information provided to the user in order to diagnose any one or more among the skin, scalp, health condition, and preference of the user; (Delapenha: see at least ¶8, 47, 49-66; 96, 108; fig. 3A-3D: Questionnaire responses and images of hair collected from user to diagnose hair condition and determine preferences)
generating a result of diagnosing any one or more among the skin, scalp, health condition, and preference of the user on the basis of the survey response information and the image; (Delapenha: see at least ¶115)
generating and providing recipe information for manufacturing a user-customized product with respect to the diagnosis result; (Delapenha: see at least ¶115)
transmitting, to a product manufacturing device, a user-customized product manufacturing instruction signal including the recipe information on the basis of a user-customized product purchase signal received from the user wherein the recipe information includes a raw material recommended by a diagnosis code including the diagnosis result and a raw material code including raw material information. (Delapenha: see at least ¶47-48; 148, fig. 3A-3D)
Regarding Claim 5
Delapenha further discloses:
wherein the image is transmitted to an artificial intelligence service, and the diagnosis result is generated using a result generated by analysis of the artificial intelligence. (Delapenha: see at least ¶108-109)
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.
3. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delapenha in view of Jeong et al. (US 20190295728 A1, hereinafter Jeong).
Regarding Claim 2
Delapenha teaches the claimed invention except for the following, which Jeong teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the raw material code further includes a raw material purity score and a raw material proportion score, and the recipe information provides a score calculated by a sum of the raw material purity score and the raw material proportion score. (Jeong: see at least ¶166-182, fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Delapenha, with the features of Jeong, since such a modification would have provided customized cosmetics appropriate for a skin condition of each user, thereby effectively solving concerns of the user using the cosmetics, and enhancing the satisfaction and reliability of the cosmetics. (Jeong: see ¶34)
Regarding Claim 3
Delapenha discloses a cosmetic formulation calculated by artificial intelligence that has learned to output an amount of required ingredients (Delapenha: see at least ¶15, 104, 107, 123-125: machine learning model determines base formulation, which includes a ratio of ingredients). However, Delapenha does not explicitly disclose, but Jeong teaches, in a similar environment:
wherein the recipe information includes a raw material mixing ratio (Jeong: see at least ¶166-182, fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Delapenha, with the features of Jeong, since such a modification would have provided customized cosmetics appropriate for a skin condition of each user, thereby effectively solving concerns of the user using the cosmetics, and enhancing the satisfaction and reliability of the cosmetics. (Jeong: see ¶34)
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delapenha in view of An (US 20230108573 A1).
Delapenha teaches the claimed invention except for the following, which An teaches in a similar environment:
after the step of generating and providing recipe information, the step of generating a user-customized product label using the recipe information, wherein a space where product information and user’s order information are displayed may be provided on the label, and areas other than the space where product information and user’s order information are displayed are freely customized by the user. (An: see at least ¶106, 109, 140)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Delapenha, with the features of An, since such a modification would have provided cosmetics customized according to skin diagnosis information for each customer are automatically manufactured, and continuous and real-time skin care services using the customized cosmetics. (An: see ¶5)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, amended to correct the claim format as per the objection above, and amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, without broadening its scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yakupov et al. (US 20170360693 A1) discloses customized cosmetic compositions, and methods of rejuvenating and utilizing cells and/or components thereof, including determining customized cosmetic formulations based on analysis of customer personal data.
Yoon (US 20240177213 A1) disclose an apparatus and method for recommending customized cosmetics based on artificial intelligence, including feeding an image and an answered questionnaire to an AI to determine a recommended formula for cosmetics.
How AI and AR can help beauty industry (PTO-892 Reference U) discusses using AI for image analysis to determine skin care treatments and cosmetics applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights