CTFR 17/759,690 CTFR 88440 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to addressing the 112 rejection of claim 8 below, Applicant fails to address the fact that the Applicant’s disclosure is silent to determining color palette to display to the user is based on pixel values associated with the plurality of probes.” As a review of the specification finds that probes are mentioned in only paragraph 177, but are silent to associating the probes with “pixel values.” Instead said probes are used by the user to assign color palettes to different parts of the outfit or to establish priority among said parts. Appropriate correction is required . 07-37-08 In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that noise is uncertainty based on a skintone prediction model) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant's argument that i.e. that noise is uncertainty based on a skintone prediction model, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Additionally, Applicant argues that analyzing RGB has nothing to do with performing a prediction noise assessment based on said model. However, the claim never indicates what is meant by the prediction noise except that the system decides whether the images meet a median skin tone value of a skintone prediction model. Here, a noise assessment as broadest reasonably interpreted as evaluating the images and determining the level of unwanted visual distortion, such as a grainy or splotchy appearance, caused by variations in brightness and color. Further, a lack of clarity and sharpness that makes the image look less clean. Here, Aarabi discloses evaluating an images looking for uncertainties in said images regarding skin tone using an RGB analysis (Para. 91, 103, and 168, 167). Thus, performing face detection and determining the level of noise in the images across many images with regard to skin tone using red green blue values to do so. Aarabi stating in para. 102, that this analysis corresponds to a determination of the average skin color/tone based on a plurality of images i.e. a skintone prediction model, and the system is operable to adjust for lighting, and to facilitate such, an adjustment only a preset, statistical portion of the pixels in the portion of the image showing a skin portion may be analyzed in the aggregation. Further delineation is needed of the prediction noise assessment is needed to adequately define over the prior art of record. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually i.e. Brunner probes the actual object not the image itself, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the probes are used to help post processing of the scanned articles i.e. of the image taken not of the actual object. Further, Samain already teaches evaluation of a selfie image, thus it follows that modifying the device of Samain with the probes of Brunner would further serve to help said evaluation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 8-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph , as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Re: Claim 8, said claim recites “wherein the determined color palette to display to the user is based on pixel values associated with the plurality of probes.” However, a review of the specification finds that probes are mentioned in only paragraph 177, but are silent to associating the probes with “pixel values.” Instead said probes are used by the user to assign color palettes to different parts of the outfit or to establish priority among said parts. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 9-12 and 15 are rejected for their incorporation of the above through their dependency of claim 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Harvill et al. (US 2018/0260871 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Aarabi (US 2015/0339757) and Kuo (US Patent No. 10,762,665) . Re: Claim 1, Harvill et al. teach a mobile user device that includes processing circuitry configured to execute an application that determines a skin tone of a user (calibrated skin color information) (para [00051]), and determine and transmit a recipe for generating a target foundation that is based on a combination of a plurality of separate foundation ingredients that are associated with the skin tone of the user (para [0034] , [0050] and [0086]); a dispensing device (mixture service) configured to receive the transmitted recipe from the mobile user device and dispense each of the plurality of separate foundation ingredients (primary components) onto a common dispensing surface (container) such that when the dispensed amounts of each of the plurality of separate foundation ingredients is blended on the dispensing surface, the target foundation is achieved (para [0050] and [0262]); and wherein the processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to determine a skin tone of the user based on features in a detected face of the user in a self-taken image of the user that is captured by a camera of the mobile user device (para [0051]). Harvill discloses the claimed invention except for the 360 video. However, Kuo teaches self-taken image is a 360 video (Fig. 4, Col. 3, lines 49-51, 360 video). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the use of 360 video as taught by Kuo, since such a modification would allow the device to capture images a of a wider variety of objects while providing a greater range of imagery for each object. Harvill teaches the claimed invention except for processing circuitry for skin tone noise assessment. However, Aarabi teaches a processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to perform face detection of the user's face in a plurality of frames of the video and perform a skin tone noise prediction assessment of a skintone prediction model that performs a skintone prediction based on the plurality of frames of the video (Para. 102, 103, a skin tone prediction model sets the threshold value for tone of skin), predict the skin tone of the user using the skintone prediction model based on a median detected skin tone in the plurality of frames when the skin tone noise prediction assessment indicates a noise level that is below a threshold, and request the user to provide information of a previously used foundation to predict the skin tone of the user when the noise prediction assessment indicates a noise level that is above a threshold (Aarabi: para. 91, 103, and 168, 167, analyzes the rgb of the image to ensure it’s at a proper rgb to account for any noise in the image such that an accurate reading may take place of skin tone, hair, face, etc.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the claimed features as taught by Aarabi, since Aarabi states in paragraph 106 that such a modification provides a more accurate color prediction as different images would provide different input weights depending on the image's score confidence, number of detected skin pixels, as well as other visual or image-dependent information. The brightest and darkest colored images can be discarded, to remove outliers. Based on the skin under-tone vote, and based on the skin color average, the end color and under-tone may be detected. Re: Claim 3, Harvill discloses the claimed invention except for processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to perform face detection of the user's face in a plurality of frames of the video and to predict the skin tone of the user based on a median detected skin tone in the plurality of frames. However, Aarabi teaches a processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to perform face detection of the user's face in a plurality of frames of the video and to predict the skin tone of the user based on a median detected skin tone in the plurality of frames (para [0094]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the claimed features as taught by Aarabi, since Aarabi states in paragraph 95 that such a modification allows the device to utilize both images and video to generate recommendations and to generate statistical information for more accurate results. Re: Claim 7, the device of Harvill as evidenced in the rejection of claim 1 above is capable of performing the method of this claim . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvill et al. (US 2018/0260871 A1), Aarabi (US 2015/0339757), and Kuo (US Patent No. 10,762,665) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart et al. (US 2018/0189853) . Re: Claim 6, Harvill discloses the claimed invention except for the dispensing surface is configured to be part of a detachable portion of the apparatus. However, Stewart teaches the dispensing surface is configured to be part of a detachable portion of the apparatus (removeable cartridge) (para [0109]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the claimed features as taught by Stewart, since such a modification increases the portability of the device making it easy to carry . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-10, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samain et al. (US 2017/0360178 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2015/0250294 A1) and Brunner (US 2019/0180410 A1) . Re: Claim 8, Samain discloses the claimed invention including a system comprising: a mobile user device (100) that includes processing circuitry (Fig. 30, Para. 219, smartphone inherently has circuitry for executing applications) configured to execute an application that receives a selection of a target color of lipstick from a user (Para. 217, selects color), and determine and transmit a recipe for generating the target color of the lipstick that is based on a combination of a plurality of separate lipstick ingredients (Para. 218, generate recipe for selected color); and a dispensing device (11) configured to receive the transmitted recipe from the mobile user device and dispense each of the plurality of separate lipstick ingredients onto a common dispensing surface (115) such that when the dispensed amounts of each of the plurality of separate lipstick ingredients is blended on the dispensing surface, the target color of the lipstick is achieved (Fig. 30, Para. 311-312, 332, 468, smartphone transmit to dispenser), wherein the processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to present at least one candidate color of lipstick to the user that is based on at least a user profile (307) of the user of the smartphone except for expressly using the term profile. However, in Fig. 31, para. 385, the user device has candidate colors based on the user profile, a favorites page implicitly requires a user to make the favorites and requires some sort of profile to remember said favorites. the processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to display a color palette to the user which represents all colors which can be produced by the dispensing device based on the specific set of the plurality of separate lipstick ingredients currently installed in the dispensing device (Fig. 31, Para. 373, color palette based on installed ingredients). Samain discloses the claimed invention including the processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to determine the color palette to display to the user based on color combinations found in the user’s selfie image (Fig. 31, Para. 425, recommends colors based on user's image according to color combinations) except for the user’s outfit. However, Miller teaches recommending certain cosmetics based on the user’s outfit (Para. 63, based on outfit). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include recommendations based on outfit as taught by Miller, since Miller states in paragraph 63 that such a modification provides recommendations to match and complete the user’s look. Samain discloses the claimed invention except for probes. However, Brunner discloses a plurality of probes (370) are set at different points on an article the user is wearing in an image (implicitly may be a selfie image as taught by Samain above), and wherein the determined color palette to display to the user is based on pixel values associated with the plurality of probes (Fig. 3, Para. 42, probes placed on different parts of a worn article, to account for imperfect scanning thus less than ideal pixel values). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the probes as taught by Brunner, since Brunner states in paragraph 42 that such a modification facilitate post-processing operations to account for the imperfectly scanned portions of the article. Re: Claim 9, Samain discloses the claimed invention including the processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to present at least one candidate color of lipstick to the user that is based further on at least one of a questionnaire answered by the user, social media accounts of the user, social media accounts followed by the user, local fashion information based on geolocation, and environment data related to the user (Para. 425, proposes color based on a questionnaire Re: Claim 10, Samain discloses the claimed invention including an external server that communicates with the mobile user device over a network, wherein the processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to transmit user inputs used to configure the user profile to the external server, and the external server includes processing circuitry configured to determine relevant images that include candidate colors of lipstick based on the user inputs and to transmit the determined relevant images to the mobile user device (Para. 402, 403, data inputted may be stored on a server). Re: Claim 12, Samain discloses the claimed invention including the processing circuitry of the mobile user device is configured to display an interface that allows the user to virtually try-on the at least one candidate color of lipstick to the user on a self-taken image of the user (Fig. 38, Para. 400, virtually display face and test different product thereon). Re: Claim 15, Samain discloses the claimed invention including the dispensing surface is configured to be part of a detachable portion of the apparatus (Para. 333, screws on and can screw off) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samain et al. (US 2017/0360178 A1) and Miller (US 2015/0250294 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Besen (US 2019/0208887 A1) . Re: Claim 11, Samain discloses the claimed invention except for using social media images. However, Besen discloses a processing circuitry of an external server (750) is configured to determine the relevant images based on images of people wearing cosmetic included in social media platforms (Para. 68, 72, incorporates social media content through an external server). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include images from social media as taught by Besen, since Besen states in paragraph 68 that such a modification better informs and predicts styles of interest to the user based upon preferences indicated within the user's social media presence. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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. /CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 2 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 3 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 4 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 5 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 6 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 7 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 8 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 9 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 10 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 11 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 12 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 13 Art Unit: 3754 Application/Control Number: 17/759,690 Page 14 Art Unit: 3754
Prosecution Insights