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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 07/14/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3, 6, and 7, as well as the cancellation of claim 5 and the addition of new claims 8-10.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “active, the” in the second-to-last line should instead read –active, output the--.
Regarding claim 6, it should end with a period.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “the_cosmetic” should instead read –the cosmetic--.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “includes combination of” should instead read –includes a combination of--. The recitations of “users” should instead read –user’s-- or –users’-- as appropriate. The recitation of “a corresponding types” should instead read –corresponding types--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support for determining if motion stabilization is active or static based on the collected information, at least because this information is gathered via the mobile device and not the applicator. There is no support for the idea of determining whether motion stabilization is active or static in the sense that the claim language implies determining active/static as determining an on/off state, but the specification talks about active or static only when comparing with a threshold. I.e., there is no stabilization when the user’s movement is on one side of the threshold, and there is stabilization when the user’s movement is on the other side. This is not the same as e.g. an on/off switch for stabilization, especially one that can “output whether motion stabilization is active or static.” Display of an on/off state is not contemplated.
Regarding claim 8, there is no support for what is implied by “other cosmetic application.” I.e., not all cosmetic applications are contemplated.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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 1-4 and 6-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the recitations of e.g. “determine if motion stabilization is active or static” is unclear because active and static can mean on/off and they can also mean two different types of stabilization (e.g. high/low). The meaning is not clear from the specification.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “a corresponding output mobile stabilization data” is unclear because the claims generally refer to “motion” stabilization data, not “mobile” stabilization data.
Further regarding claim 10, at least the recitation of “previous information (a) indicating…” makes it unclear whether options (b) and (c) are also indicated. I.e., it may be that Applicant intends –previous information indicating (a)--. The grammar is inconsistent otherwise. Also note, the recitation of “includes combination of” suggests that the claim does not require the presence of all three of (a), (b), and (c).
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2020/0085168 (“Pang”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2023/0404437 (“Davies”), US Patent 6,546,134 (“Shrairman”), and US Patent Application Publication 2010/0245131 (“Graumann”).
Regarding claim 1, Pang teaches [a]n accessibility diagnosis system for a motion stabilization device for stabilization of a cosmetic applicator (Figs. 7A-7C, Abstract), comprising: a mobile user device that includes a touch sensitive display (Fig. 7B, mobile device 722) and a motion sensor (Davies teaches in ¶ 0061 that smartphones typically include movement sensors, such as gyros and accelerometers), the mobile user device including processing circuitry (inherent) configured to: … collect information indicating … (b) a type of cosmetic application (¶¶s 0009, 0017, 0032, etc., via the connection shown in Figs. 7A-7C and described in e.g. ¶ 0048); and a server device that is connected to the mobile user device via a network (Fig. 7C and ¶ 0051, server 742 connected to client device 720 via a network), the server device including processing circuitry (inherent) configured to receive the collected information from the mobile user device (¶¶s 0051, 0052, 0055, etc., receiving usage data, setting data, data relating to the appliance, the brushheads, etc.), ….
Pang does not appear to explicitly teach the mobile user device configured to display a request to a user for an input of one or more of a specific drawing motion or a specific movement of the mobile user device, and collect information indicating (a) a movement pattern of the user's hands based on the results of the user's input in response to the request. Pang does not appear to explicitly teach the server device configured to receive this specific collected information, …determine an amount of motion stabilization to be set for the motion stabilization device based on the collected information, and output … the determined amount of motion stabilization to the motion stabilization device (although the device 100 does this, as described in the Abstract).
Davies teaches displaying a request to a user (¶ 0059, presenting an active task via a user interface) to e.g. move the smartphone in a specific way (Fig. 5, ¶¶s 0077 and 0078), and teaches collecting information indicating a movement pattern of the [user] based on the user input (¶ 0078, stride). Davies also teaches requesting that the user refrain from moving the device, to assess movement of the user’s hands (¶ 0076, deviation from a starting position, tremors, etc.). Alternatively, Davies teaches that the task can be tapping, touching targets, or typing (¶¶s 0009-0011), with the collected information being related to speed and accuracy of hand movements (¶ 0065). Davies teaches performing processing/calculations on the server (¶ 0083).
Shrairman teaches assessing a user input of a specific drawing motion to quantify measures of neurological function (Abstract, col. 9, lines 61-67, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display a request for e.g. a specific drawing motion, as in Shrairman, and to collect information associated therewith, including information related to a movement pattern of the user’s hands (Shrairman: Abstract; Davies: ¶¶s 0065, 0076, etc.), for the purpose of assessing neurological function (Shrairman: Abstract) or effects of neuromuscular disease (Davies: ¶¶s 0076, 0078, 0081, etc.), and adjusting for them accordingly (Pang: Abstract). It would have been obvious to receive the data obtained according to the teachings of Davies and Shrairman at the server of Pang, to process it there, as the simple substitution of one processing device for another with predictable results (Davies: ¶ 0083, using the processor of a device, remote device, or server), and for the purpose of conserving resources/power on the device 100 of Pang.
Pang-Davies-Shrairman does not appear to explicitly teach the server device being configured to determine if motion stabilization is active or static based on the collected information, in response to a determination that motion stabilization is active, determine the amount of motion stabilization to be set, and output whether motion stabilization is active or static and, if motion stabilization is active, the determined amount of motion stabilization (although see the teachings of Pang related to motion stabilization above, and e.g. ¶ 0054, describing providing real-time feedback, which is related to the status of the motion stabilization. Also note that Davies: ¶ 0081 teaches comparing with a baseline to assess improvement, degeneration, etc.).
Graumann teaches that motion stabilization is a feature than can be turned on or off (¶ 0044).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to e.g. determine whether motion stabilization is on or off (e.g. based on the baseline/threshold of Davies), output/display the status (e.g. via real-time feedback as in Pang), and if on, determine an appropriate amount to output and apply, since motion stabilization may not be needed if the user has improved or is normal (as contemplated by Davies), and for the purpose of conserving power on the device 100 of Pang. The determination is made for at least one particular cosmetic application because that is the context of Pang.
Regarding claim 3, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann further teaches wherein, when the request to the user for the input includes the specific movement of the mobile user device, the specific movement includes at least one of moving the mobile user device close to the user's face and rotating the mobile user device in a predetermined direction (Davies: ¶ 0018, rotational deviation from a predetermined orientation over time).
Regarding claim 4, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann further teaches wherein the mobile user device is configured to provide a questionnaire to the user and the amount of motion stabilization required to be set for the motion stabilization device is further based on the user's responses to the questionnaire (Davies: ¶ 0080, obvious to include for the purpose of more comprehensively assessing the user).
Regarding claim 6, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann further teaches wherein determination if motion stabilization is active or static is based on comparing a value associated with the collected information to a threshold (Davies: ¶ 0081, comparing with a baseline to assess improvement, degeneration, etc. Graumann teaches that motion stabilization is a feature than can be turned on or off (¶ 0044). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to e.g. determine that motion stabilization should be turned on or off (active or static) based on the baseline/threshold of Davies, since motion stabilization may not be needed if the user has improved or is normal (as contemplated by Davies), and for the purpose of conserving power on the device 100 of Pang. The determination is made for at least one particular cosmetic application because that is the context of Pang).
Regarding claim 8, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann further teaches wherein the type of cosmetic application comprises skincare application, lipstick application, eyeshadow application, mascara application, or other cosmetic application (Pang: ¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 9, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann further teaches wherein the output motion stabilization includes adjustment of variables related to rotation or flexion of the cosmetic applicator (Pang: ¶ 0039, a gyroscope reporting on rotation – also see ¶ 0042, anti-shaking movement, and ¶ 0035 and Fig. 2, describing/showing a self-leveling feature).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0401010 (“Lindemann”).
Regarding claim 2, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann does not appear to explicitly teach wherein, when the request to the user for the input includes the specific drawing motion, the specific drawing motion includes at least one of drawing a straight line and drawing a circular pattern.
Lindemann teaches that a circle drawing speed coefficient of variance is a typical performance parameter for fine motor capabilities (¶ 0067).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the user draw a circle in the combination, as in Lindemann, since it is a typical parameter for assessing fine motor capabilities (Lindemann: ¶ 0067).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann in view of US Patent 11,975,195 (“Heldman”).
Regarding claim 7, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry of the server device determines the amount of motion stabilization by inputting the collected information into a neural network that is trained to output a motion stabilization profile based on pre-existing combinations of collected information from previous motion stabilization profile.
Heldman teaches using an artificial neural network, trained with clinician parameter inputs in response to particular motor symptoms, to output recommended parameters (col. 52, lines 13-38, Fig. 4 and related description, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a neural network like the one of Heldman into the combination, for the purpose of improving effectiveness of the stabilization amount determination (Heldman: col. 52, lines 16-20), and as the simple substitution of one type of determination means (that of Pang) for another (that of Heldman) with predictable results (applying the correct amount of stabilization based on the particular inputs).
Regarding claim 10, Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Pang-Davies-Shrairman-Graumann does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry of the server device determines the amount of motion stabilization by inputting the collected information into a neural network that is trained to output a motion stabilization profile, wherein the neural network is trained with previous user data, and wherein the previous user data includes combination of previous information (a) indicating movement patterns of previous users hands based on the results of each users input, (b) a corresponding types of cosmetic applications, and (c) a corresponding output mobile stabilization data.
Heldman teaches using an artificial neural network, trained with clinician parameter inputs in response to particular motor symptoms, to output recommended parameters (col. 52, lines 13-38, Fig. 4 and related description, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a neural network like the one of Heldman into the combination, for the purpose of improving effectiveness of the stabilization amount determination (Heldman: col. 52, lines 16-20), and as the simple substitution of one type of determination means (that of Pang) for another (that of Heldman) with predictable results (applying the correct amount of stabilization based on the particular inputs). Such a neural network is trained to map from an input to an output. The input in the present case is e.g. the movement patterns of Pang, while the output is the determined amount of motion stabilization. The type of application would have been obvious to include as well, since different types require different user motions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112, they are not persuasive. Although it is true that “active” and “static” are two different states, it is unclear what those states are. The current claim 1 does not recite the states as with respect to e.g. a threshold. Even if it did, as in claim 6, it is still unclear whether e.g. “active” means that stabilization is turned on, or that a particular type of stabilization is occurring. In general, the claims have significant issues under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b). It is suggested that Applicant point to explicit support for each claim limitation, and describe what the terms mean with respect to a real embodiment.
Regarding the prior art rejections, it is noted that Applicant did not specifically address the teachings of any of the prior art, including Graumann. All claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights