Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/228,364

ROBOTIC STAMP FOR COSMETIC APPLICATOR CONFIGURED FOR USERS WITH LIMITED MOBILITY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
L'Oréal
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
745 granted / 995 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1032
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 995 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 1-7 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). 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 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) comprise 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 It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the lipstick applicator (stamp) of Uehara 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) and the recessed area has a shape confirming to a user's lip region, as shown above. Claim 3, further comprising an embedded camera (inherently 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), connector 105, and (positively claims) the motion stabilizing device 100 configured to receive information of the target area of the user via at least the user’s vision or the client device. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: external device (claim 1). Please add a reference numeral. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594156
PROSTHESIS FOR THE LUNG AND THE USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589011
PROSTHETIC HAND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575951
LINER HAVING DIFFERENT REGIONS OF ELONGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575936
OXIDE LAYER-CONTAINING ZIRCONIUM-NIOBIUM ALLOY ANKLE JOINT PROSTHETIC SYSTEM AND MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575948
PROSTHETIC FOOT WITH DISTRIBUTED STRESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+8.8%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 995 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month