DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. The application has pending claims 1-21 (withdrawn claims 6, 13, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at each of lines 5 and 8 respectively: “the color” should be -- the one or more color --.
Claim 8 at line 1: “method for comprising:” should be -- method comprising: --.
Claim 8 at each of lines 5 and 8: “recommendation” should be -- recommendations --.
Claim 11 at line 4; and claim 18 at line 4 respectively: “determine color pigment mixing recommendation” should be -- determine one or more color pigment mixing recommendations --.
Claim 11 at lines 5-6; and claim 15 at lines 6-7 and at lines 9-10; and claim 18 at lines 5-6 respectively: “the color pigment mixing recommendation” should be -- the one or more color pigment mixing recommendations --.
Claim 12 at line 6; and claim 19 at line 6 respectively: “color pigment mixing recommendation” should be -- one or more color pigment mixing recommendations --.
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 9-12 and 14 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.
Re Claim 9: The claim limitation “of claim 9” at line 1 renders the claim indefinite and unclear because the claim is dependent upon itself. The Examiner suggests “of claim 9” to be -- of claim 8 --.
Re Claim 10 at lines 1-2: The claim limitation “the operations” lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests “further comprising the operations of:” should be -- further comprising: --.
Similar discussions are addressed with regard to claim 11 at lines 1-2, claim 12 at lines 1-2, and claim 14 at lines 1-2 respectively.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 8 and similarly the system of independent claim 1 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of independent claim 15 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “determining one or more color value sets of a person's skin; evaluating the one or more color value sets; and generating one or more color pigment mixing recommendations, the one or more color pigment mixing recommendation including one or more colors and ratios of the colors to be mixed”.
Each of the above limitations of “determining one or more color value sets of a person's skin”, “evaluating the one or more color value sets”, and “generating one or more color pigment mixing recommendations, the one or more color pigment mixing recommendation including one or more colors and ratios of the colors to be mixed” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in the independent claims include the additional element of “displaying, via a user interface of a client device, the generated one or more color pigment mixing recommendation”. Further, the additional elements recited in independent claim 8 are the elements of “computer-implemented”; and the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are the elements of “one or more processors”; and the additional elements recited in independent claim 15 are the elements of a “non-transitory computer readable medium that stores executable program instructions that when executed by one or more computing devices configure the one or more computing devices”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The step “displaying, via a user interface of a client device, the generated one or more color pigment mixing recommendation” merely constitutes activity involving data outputting. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements “a user interface of a client device”, “computer-implemented”, “one or more processors”, and “non-transitory computer readable medium that stores executable program instructions that when executed by one or more computing devices configure the one or more computing devices” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the step of “displaying, via a user interface of a client device, the generated one or more color pigment mixing recommendation” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements “a user interface of a client device”, “computer-implemented”, “one or more processors”, and “non-transitory computer readable medium that stores executable program instructions that when executed by one or more computing devices configure the one or more computing devices” are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21:
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21 are dependent on corresponding independent claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Thus claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21 recite “Mental Processes”. Further, claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21 further describe:
Dependent claim 2 [and similarly claims 9 and 16] merely describes “obtaining by a color sensor device …; and receiving from the color sensor device the one or more color value sets” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data gathering] and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 3 [and similarly claims 10 and 17] merely describes “obtaining one or more images, via the client device, of the person’s skin” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data gathering] and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more; and further merely describes “inputting the one or more images into a trained machine learning network … determining by the trained machine learning network the one or more color pigment mixing recommendations” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Dependent claim 4 [and similarly claims 11 and 18] merely describes “inputting the one or more color value sets into a trained machine learning network … determining by the trained machine learning network the one or more color pigment mixing recommendations” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Dependent claim 5 [and similarly claims 12 and 19] merely describes “performing a lookup operation …; and selecting one or more predetermined color pigment mixing recommendations from the lookup table …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 7 [and similarly claims 14 and 21] merely describes “obtaining one or more images, via the client device, of a person’s skin” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data gathering] and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more; and further merely describes “determining the one or more color value sets of a person’s skin based on processing …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Thus, claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charraud et al (US 2021/0236390 A1, provided by Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement IDS).
Re Claim 1: Charraud discloses a system comprising one or more processors configured to perform the operations of (see Charraud, [0138]-[0139], [0146], processor(s) implemented): determining one or more color value sets of a person's skin (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], skin analysis and diagnosis: determine a LAB color value of the skintone of a user); evaluating the one or more color value sets (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], matching the user’s skintone); and generating one or more color pigment mixing recommendations, the color pigment mixing recommendations including one or more color pigments and an amount of the color pigments to be mixed (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], a recommended foundation blend [a combination of the ingredients recipe and its associated dose quantities] which matches the user’s skintone is determined); and displaying, via a user interface of a client device, the color pigment mixing recommendations (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0138], [0169], [0213]-[0215], the determined recommended foundation blend [a combination of the ingredients recipe and its associated dose quantities] is presented through the app of the user’s smartphone).
Although different embodiments of Charraud have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Charraud by combining Charraud’s similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0138], [0169], [0213]-[0215], [0245]).
Re Claim 2: Charraud further discloses wherein the determining the one or more color value sets comprises: obtaining by a color sensor device, the one or more color value sets, wherein an individual color value set includes an L* value, an a* value, and a b* value in the L*a*b* color space (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], obtain a LAB color value of the skintone of a user via the camera of the user’s smartphone); and receiving from the color sensor device the one or more color value sets (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], the app receives the image data [LAB color value of the skintone of a user] obtained via the camera of the user’s smartphone to determine a recommended foundation blend).
Re Claim 3: Charraud further discloses obtaining one or more images, via the client device, of the person's skin (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], obtain series of photos of the user’s skin via the camera of the user’s smartphone); inputting the one or more images into a trained machine learning network configured to determine a color pigment mixing recommendation (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0200], [0212]-[0217], the images are input into the trained deep learning model for inference); and determining by the trained machine learning network the one or more color pigment mixing recommendations (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0200], [0212]-[0217], using the trained deep learning model for inference of the skintone from the images wherein the skintone is used to determine the recommended foundation blend [a combination of the ingredients recipe and its associated dose quantities / dosage amounts and proportions]).
Re Claim 4: Charraud further discloses inputting the one or more color value sets into a trained machine learning network configured to determine one or more color pigment mixing recommendations (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0200], [0212]-[0217], the LAB color value image data is input into the trained deep learning model); and determining by the trained machine learning network the one or more color pigment mixing recommendations (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0200], [0212]-[0217], using the trained deep learning model for inference wherein the LAB color value of the user’s skintone is used to determine the recommended foundation blend [a combination of the ingredients recipe and its associated dose quantities / dosage amounts and proportions]).
Re Claim 7: Charraud further discloses obtaining one or more images, via the client device, of a person's skin (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], obtain series of photos of the user’s skin via the camera of the user’s smartphone); and determining the one or more color value sets of a person's skin based on processing of the one or more images to determine the one or more color value sets (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], skin analysis and diagnosis on the obtained photos: determine a LAB color value of the skintone of a user).
Re Claim 8: Charraud discloses a computer-implemented method for comprising (see Charraud, [0138]-[0139], [0146], CPU processor implemented): determining one or more color value sets of a person's skin (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], skin analysis and diagnosis: determine a LAB color value of the skintone of a user); evaluating the one or more color value sets (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], matching the user’s skintone); and generating one or more color pigment mixing recommendations, the one or more color pigment mixing recommendation including one or more colors and ratios of the colors to be mixed (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0200], [0212]-[0215], a recommended foundation blend [a combination of the ingredients recipe and its associated dose quantities / dosage amounts and proportions] which matches the user’s skintone is determined); and displaying, via a user interface of a client device, the generated one or more color pigment mixing recommendation (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0138], [0169], [0213]-[0215], the determined recommended foundation blend [a combination of the ingredients recipe and its associated dose quantities / dosage amounts and proportions] is presented through the app of the user’s smartphone).
As to claims 9-11 and 14, the discussions are addressed with regard to claims 2-4 and 7 respectively.
As to claim 15, the claim is the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium to claim 1 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1. Further, Charraud further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores executable program instructions that when executed by one or more computing devices configure the one or more computing devices to perform the operations (see Charraud, [0138]-[0139], [0146], memory storing instructions executable by the CPU processor implementation).
As to claims 16-18 and 21, the discussions are addressed with regard to claims 2-4 and 7 respectively.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charraud in view of Rattner et al (WO 2023/050004 A1). The teachings of Charraud have been discussed above.
Re Claim 5: Charraud further discloses performing a lookup operation to identify a closet match of color values in a lookup to individual values in the color value set (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], the color of the previous foundation is mapped to a stored LAB value that is used to determine the blend used to generate the recommended foundation blend [a combination of the ingredients recipe and its associated dose quantities] which matches the user’s skintone is determined); and selecting one or more predetermined color pigment mixing recommendations from the lookup to be the generated one or more color pigment mixing recommendations (see Charraud, Figs. 12A-12B, [0003], [0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215], selecting the blend generated based on the LAB color value of the user’s skintone or based on the color value of the previous foundation from the mapped/stored LAB).
Charraud however fails to explicitly disclose where Rattner discloses that the lookup is with a lookup table (see Rattner, [0002], [0020]-[0021], [0042], skin images in the LAB color format are obtained and the user’s skin color is used to consult the lookup table for a cosmetics color recommendation).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Charraud’s system using Rattner’s teachings by including the lookup table to Charraud’s lookup operation in order to improve the processing speed in which the cosmetics color recommendation is provided via a lookup table consult (see Rattner, [0002], [0020]-[0021], [0042]).
As to claim 12, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 5 respectively.
As to claim 19, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 5 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lindgren ‘077 discloses the outputted skin-tone may be sent to data analysis and recommendation engine and used as an input to generate personalized beauty product recommendations; Shenk et al ‘894 discloses determining product recommendations based at least in part on the predicted base skin color associated with the user and the predicted undertone color associated with the user; Elfakhri et al ‘240 discloses the skin color may be used to generate a recommendation for a foundation shade that accurately matches the skin color; Festejo ‘736 discloses skin color assessment and color pigment mixing recommendation for cosmetic applications; Deng ‘093 discloses a skin color model and a lipstick color recommendation model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 November 18, 2025