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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections and Prior Art rejections are withdrawn.
Claim interpretations under 35 US 112(f) are maintained.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are only partially withdrawn; Applicant failed to address most of the previously filed rejections under 35 USC 112(b), as will be described in detail below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites, “to define to define” and “image image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant failed to properly annotate the amendments. For example, see “ [[,]];” in claim 1, which should presumably recite “ [[,]];”.
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 1-4 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. The Applicant failed to address many of the previously filed 35 USC 112(b) rejections, as recited below, and further created new 35 USC 112(b) rejections based on the amendments. Accordingly, the claims contain a multitude of antecedence issues, several of which are identified below. Applicant is advised to carefully review the rejections and the claims, line by line, limitation by limitation, and make significant revisions.
Claim 1 recites, “using pattern recognition algorithms to define to define and indicate the labelled lip images for use in training a segmentation model;”. This limitation was rejected in the previous Office Action for poor clarity. This rejection is maintained, despite the amendments. The Examiner cannot ascertain the scope of “to define and indicate the labelled lip images”. There is no explanation for what about the image is being defined. Similarly, there is no explanation for what about the image is being indicated. It is unclear how an image can be defined and indicated, without further explanation. The claim is being interpreted such that pattern recognition algorithms are used on the labelled lip images for use in training a segmentation model.
Claim 1 recites, “the model”, which lacks proper antecedence because it is unclear if it is in reference to the “machine learning model” or the newly added “segmentation model”. This is being interpreted as in line with the “machine learning model”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitations of the now cancelled claim 5. In the Non-Final Office Action, Claim 5 was rejected for a plurality of antecedence issues. Most of these issues were not addressed when the limitations of Claim 5 were incorporated into Claim 1. See item 19 on Pages 7-8 of the Non-Final Office Action filed 11/18/2025.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites, “the original lip images”, which lacks antecedence. This is being interpreted as a new element. Claim 2 recites, “the training process”, which lacks antecedence, and is being interpreted as referring to the step of training. Claim 2 recites, “the end” which lacks antecedence and is being interpreted as “an end”.
Claim 3 recites, “the lips” which lacks antecedence and is being interpreted as a new element. Claim 3 recites, “the lip region” which lacks antecedence, and is being interpreted as a new element.
Claim 4 recites a plurality of antecedence issues that require correction. Some of these issues include, “the region of the images containing the lip region or part of the lips” and “the training base of images”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is objected to and rejected under 35 USC 112(b) but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above objections and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 1 (as well as dependent claims 2-4), in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 recites: “A method for detecting and segmenting lip regions in lip images, the method implemented in a processing module present in a lip product application system and comprising the steps of: recognizing patterns by extracting input features from the lip images labelling the recognized patterns in the lip images for a training base by means of the processing module; using pattern recognition algorithms to define to define and indicate the labelled lip images for use in training a segmentation model; and training a machine learning model with a plurality of exemplified data and their respective answers defining labels that the model should learn and predict to identify and generate a mathematical pattern for the lip product application system; the method further comprising the steps of: submitting, in a pre-processing step, an original input lip image to the step of segmentation of the image by a superpixel algorithm with the extraction of contours resulting in an image with the separation between lip and facial skin; extracting a mask relating to the image with the separation between lip and facial skin, inserting the information from this mask in the original input lip image, and converting the color space of the original input lip image from RGB to HSV to produce an image in the HSV color space; inserting the mask information in a luminance V channel of the image in the HSV color space so as to highlight separation between lip and facial skin; converting the image in the HSV color space to RGB color space, obtaining a resulting image; inserting the resulting image in the training process using an R-CNN Mask algorithm; and carrying out the segmentation training using the R-CNN Mask algorithm with training base images of parts of lips resulting from the pre-processing step; and generating the segmentation model.”
Fu teaches an automated system for virtual makeup removal and application including facial segmentation steps and machine learning. Vats teaches a video generation method for recognizing neck and body regions. Ronneberger teaches a strategy for biomedical image segmentation using a U-Net CNN. Li discloses a virtual makeup try-on system including facial landmark detection. Achanta teaches a SLIC method of image segmentation. Yan discloses a processing method including face detection and facial region segmentation. However, none of these references disclose the bolded limitations above.
Conclusion
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 AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights