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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (11,458,062) in view of Uehara et al (9,468,280).
Applicant argues that the rejection fails to teach a stamp that includes a processing circuitry “configured to control an angular position of the stamp as the stamp is moved toward the target area of the user”. The processing circuitry does just that, it is configured to control the angular position of an applicator when moved toward the target area of the user. See at least the abstract.
Applicant further argues that the movement of the stamp may be controlled within the stamp itself. Regarding claim 1, the term “stamp” is only used in the preamble and is given no patentable weight. The combination rejection presents a device (stamp) wherein the movement of the stamp may be controlled within the stamp itself
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (11,458,062) in view of Uehara et al (9,468,280) or Samain et al (2020/0337444).
Pang et al teaches a device (such as a lipstick applicator) configured to apply a cosmetic formulation to a user, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
451
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
643
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a connector (such as 106 or at least one of 104, 105, 106) configured to attach to an external device (such as 102, 101, 103); and
a processing circuitry configured to control an angular position of the stamp as the stamp is moved toward the target area of the user; see at least the SUMMARY in columns 1-2, figure 3A and claim 5.
Pang et al further teaches:
Column 4, lines 40-45 read: FIG. 4 shows the components of the makeup applicator 106. The applicator includes the applicator tool portion 401, which is shown as a mascara brush but it is not limited thereto and it may be any protruding or extending type of make-up tool, such as a lipstick applicator, a nail polish applicator, or the like.
However, it is unclear if any of the applicator tool portions 401 (stamp) comprises a recessed area configured to receive the cosmetic formulation, the recessed area having a shape confirming to a target area of the user for applying the cosmetic formulation.
Uehara et al teaches a stamp (applicator tool portion 21) having a recessed area 21C configured to receive the cosmetic formulation, the recessed area having a shape conforming to a target area of the user for applying the cosmetic formulation. See included figures below.
PNG
media_image3.png
329
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
438
256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
377
540
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Samain et al also teaches an applicator/stamp having a recessed area configured receive the cosmetic formulation, the recessed area having a shape conforming to a lip shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the lipstick applicator (stamp) of Uehara et al or Samain et al for the lipstick applicator of Pang et al to obtain predictable results.
Claim 2, wherein the cosmetic formulation is lipstick (interpreted as not positively claimed). Both Uehara et al and Samain et al teach the recessed area has a shape confirming to a user's lip shape. The “personalized shape corresponding to a user’s lip region” does not differentiate the final product. Note that Samain et al teaches this in at least the included figures above.
Claim 3, further comprising an embedded camera (inherent to one of the client devices 720) and proximity sensor that are configured to detect the target area of the user as the stamp is moved toward the target area of the user; see applicant’s specification teaching the camera and proximity sensor are the same. Further, see column 1, lines 66 - column 2, lines 7 teaching at least one sensor; column 5, lines 25-30 and lines 57-59.
Claim 4, regarding, “further comprising a 2-axis gimbal motor system that is controlled by the processing circuitry to control the angular position of the stamp”, see at least figure 3A and column 4, lines 11-23 and column 6, lines 32-45.
Claim 5, giving the language, “mobile user device” it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be interpreted as the motion generation components.
Claim 6, further comprising a connector 105 configured to attach and communicatively couple the stamp to a motion stabilizing device 100.
Claim 7 claims a system comprising a stamp (see rejection of at least claim 1 above), via the processing circuitry of the stamp (combination) is based on an aim of the stamp towards a detected target area of the user. Pang et al teaches (5:19 et seq.):
FIG. 7A shows a system 700 that includes the device 100, as discussed above, and a client device 720. In an embodiment, the device 100 is in communication with the client device 720 with a wireless signal 710. In an embodiment, the client device 720 is configured to operate a software application or set of software modules to receive and send communications from and to the device 100. In an example, the software application can send a protocol or target profile to the device 100 for controlling the movement mechanism of a particular applicator, or for a particular user, as well as receive data from the device to track the usage and performance.
FIG. 7B shows different examples of the client devices 720 including, a mobile device 722, a wearable electronic device 724, a television or magic mirror 726, a network router 728, and a personal computer 729.
It is the examiner’s position that client device fulfills the language of at least assisting and aiming via a target profile and wherein the motion stabilizing device further controls movement based on unintentional movement of the motion stabilizing device.
Claim 8, wherein the recessed area comprises one of rubber, silicon, foam, spongy material, plastic, or a cosmetic material. See at least par. 0099 of Samain et al. Both Uehara et al and Samain et al teach a cosmetic material.
Claim 9, the stamp according to claim 2, wherein the personalized shape is based on one or more images of the user. This is a product by process limitation which does not differentiate the final product. Also, see the included figures of Samain et al teaching this.
Claim 10, the stamp according to claim 9, wherein the one or more images include a ruler proximate the user's lip region. This is a product by process limitation which does not differentiate the final product.
Claim 11, the stamp according to claim 3, wherein control of the stamp, via the motion stabilizing device 100, is based on an aim of the stamp towards a detected target area of the user by the user and the motion stabilizing device.
Claim 12, the stamp according to claim 5, wherein the mobile user device comprises a smartphone; see figure 7B of Pang et al.
Claim 13, the system according to claim 7, wherein further comprising a 2-axis (X-axis, Y-axis) gimbal motor system (see at least figure 3A) that is controlled by motion stabilizing device (processing circuitry) to control the angular position of the stamp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14-15 are allowed.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 BRUCE EDWARD SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-4759. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Thursday.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 5712729062. 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.
/BRUCE E SNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights