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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 19 December 2025 amends claims 1 and 13. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of the response, “Contrary to the Office Action’s allegation in item 7, page 4 that the specification ‘does not provide any description of how footprint information is extracted from the captured images,’ paragraph [0030] of the specification explicitly identifies numerous well-known image processing and computer vision techniques which may be utilized for extraction.” In response, Applicant has oversimplified the points made in “item 7, page 4” (which continues onto page 5) with respect to the extraction of footprint information from captured images. Specifically, the Non-Final rejection mailed 25 September 2025 (“Non-Final”) makes it clear (pages 4-5) that Applicant’s specification is silent regarding how the makeup application technique described can be utilized to generate a ‘footprint’ that uniquely identifies an individual whose image was captured. So while paragraph [0030] describes image processing techniques that can be utilized to extract image features, the specification does not describe how these “well-known techniques” are utilized to extract a singular “footprint” that uniquely identifies a user.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “Similarly, the Office Action’s allegation in item 7, page 4 that the specification does not ‘provide any description of how makeup application technique signatures are generated’ is incorrect. Paragraph [0040] explicitly describes that ‘[c]andidate MAT signatures may be discovered by utilizing, for example, pattern recognition, clustering, cluster analysis, optimization techniques, class discovery, and/or discovery techniques, which typically, but not necessarily, are unsupervised discovery techniques.’…paragraphs [0038]-[0041] describe an example method 300 for generating MAT signatures, including obtaining a plurality of images of a subject person, extracting respective MAT footprints from each of the obtained images, discovering combinations of extracted MAT footprints that occur more frequently, and selecting one of the discovered combinations to be a MAT signature.” In response, Applicant’s response above highlights the exact issues outlined in the Non-Final regarding the amount of undue experimentation that Applicant’s specification places upon those having ordinary skill in the art in order to make and use the claimed invention. In addition to the uncertainty regarding how the extract the “footprints” from the images, which is discussed above, those of ordinary skill in the art are asked to figure out combinations of these footprints that occur more frequently. What constitutes “more frequently”? How many combinations need to be utilized before a metric can be reached that is sufficient to uniquely identify the individual? The cited portions of the specification discuss the invention in an extremely generic fashion, which is wholly insufficient to provide those having ordinary skill in the art enough instruction to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “Additionally, paragraph [0045] explains that training ML models includes “recognizing, discovering, identifying, or otherwise determining 308 one or more patterns of extracted MAT footprints…that are specific, particular, or unique to the various ways in which the different people depicted within the training images 135 apply makeup.’…Accordingly, at least these quoted portions of the specification describe example techniques via which makeup application techniques signatures may [sic] generated.” In response, the above cited portion of the specification does not describe the machine learning algorithm that needs to be utilized to perform these operations. Additionally, the cited portion of the specification does not describe how the machine learning algorithm actually performs the operations. The citation of machine learning in this portion of the specification effectively represents a black box, wherein the steps performed within are unknown, which would require additional experimentation to be performed by those having ordinary skill in the art to figure out what functionality is performed by the machine learning algorithm in the black box.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “Indeed, the Office Action’s comparison of the claimed invention to fingerprint and retina authentication on pages 3 and 4 actually supports enablement of the claimed invention…Patents in fields of fingerprint and retina authentication do not require step-by-step algorithmic implementation details when the underlying techniques are well-known to skilled artisans.” In response, the issue is not whether or not the “underlying techniques” are well-known to skilled artisans. The issue is whether or not the utilization of the underlying techniques to extract uniquely identifying retina information or fingerprint information from the images is well-known to skilled artisans. As pointed out in the Non-Final (Pages 3-4), this information is well-known to those having ordinary skill in the art. The specification fails to provide any evidence that identified image processing techniques can be utilized to extract makeup application techniques from images that can uniquely identify an individual. This lack of evidence was discussed by the Examiner in the interview dated 10 December 2025. To date, no such evidence has been supplied by Applicant.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the response, “However, contrary to the Office Action’s interpretation, the recited claims do not require unique identification of individuals by either footprints or MAT signatures.” In response, the claims require “verifying an identity of a person”. If footprints and signatures are not unique to the person, how exactly are you verifying the identity of that person?
Applicant argues on page 12 of the response, “Specifically, independent claim 1 recites that ‘each footprint…[is] indicative of a respective technique via which make-up was applied’…and not that each footprint ‘unique (sic) identifies the individual whose image was captured…Independent claim 1 further requires that ‘each MAT signature…correspond[s] to a respective person and [is] indicative of a respective combination of techniques via which the respective person applies makeup’…but does not recite that each MAT signature uniquely identifies an individual.” In response, as detailed above, the claim specifically requires that the claimed method is “of verifying an identity of a personal based on a makeup application technique signature” and that the determination of the respective distance between the plurality of extracted footprints and the makeup application signature represents an identity verification procedure. Again, if the footprints and signatures are not unique to the person, how exactly are you verifying the identity of that person?
Applicant argues on page 12 of the response, “Further, the specification confirms that unique identification is not required. Paragraph [0003] states that ‘[m]akeup application technique signatures can be highly individualized and in some cases can even be unique to a respective person…Paragraph [0040] similarly states that ‘[e]ach discovered combination of extracted MAT footprints may be specific, particular, or in some cases unique to subject person…These passages demonstrate that uniqueness is a possible outcome, not a requirement.” In response, the cited passages are actually further evidence that the specification does not enable those having ordinary skill to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation because Applicant is admitting that the claimed footprints and signatures are not unique, but the claims require “verifying an identity of a person” based on these admittedly non-unique pieces of information without providing any clear guidance to those of ordinary skill in the art regarding how these non-unique footprints and signatures can be utilized to “verify an identity of a person”.
Applicant argues on page 13 of the response, “Still further, the distance-based threshold comparison as recited in the claims relates to a standard authentication approach that does not require absolute uniqueness. Many authentication systems operate on probabilistic matching within acceptance thresholds, not perfect identification.” This argument is not persuasive because the usage of distance-based threshold comparisons and probabilistic matching is to provide some real-world flexibility where imperfect scans are to be expected. For instance, for biometric authentication schemes, environmental circumstances (i.e. ambient temperature, humidity, etc.) can lead to fingerprint scans that do not 100% match the registered template for the same user. However, the algorithms utilized to generate the registered template and the sample scans still provide for the generation of information unique to the user.
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The breadth of the claims requires the extraction of make-up application footprints from captured images of a person such that the extracted footprints are utilized to verify the identity of that person by comparing the extracted footprints to makeup application technique signatures. The state of the prior art in the field of user authentication sets forth specific requirements for the creation of the user information sample being authenticated and the known user information signature that is utilized for comparing the user information sample. The known user information signature must be creatable in a manner that uniquely identifies that particular user so that when a user provides the user information sample, a comparison match effectively means that the user information sample and the known user information signature originated from the same person.
In the field of biometric authentication, user fingerprint information and user retina information are routinely used as this user information that enables the generation of unique user information samples and unique user information signatures. Specific algorithms are utilized that take specific portions of the user fingerprint/retina data in order to generate the corresponding sample/signature. For example, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0300829 (paragraph [0048]) shows the utilization of algorithms to identify and locate unique points of a fingerprint referred to as minutia and associated with each minutia found, three positional identifiers (x, y, theta). These three parameters locate the minutia in an arbitrary (but fixed) Cartesian coordinate system where x and y map the position of the minutia and theta defines its angle of orientation with respect to one of the axes. A match between two fingerprints is made when the x, y, and theta of one fingerprint match (or nearly match) the x, y, and theta of another print.
For retina information, U.S. Patent No. 11,138,301 (See column 4, lines 17-43) shows that utilization of scanning technology to identify blood vessel configurations in the eye of the individual being scanned. Mathematical and statistical algorithms allow for pattern recognition of the retina blood vessels or iris and hence the identification of the user.
These specific algorithms allow those having ordinary skill in the art to uniquely identify users from captured fingerprints and retina scans with a reasonable level of predictability due to the extensive research that has been performed in those particular fields.
Applicant’s specification does not provide any description of how footprint information is extracted from the captured images. Nor does Applicant’s specification provide any description of how the makeup application technique signatures are generated. Applicant’s specification describes the makeup application signatures as having complexity and uniqueness ([0050]), however, the specification does not provide any further information regarding how this signature is actually calculated from makeup application techniques described. Specifically, what is the combination makeup application techniques utilized to calculate the claimed signatures to reach the desired level of complexity and uniqueness? Paragraph [0040] suggests calculating the makeup application technique signatures from a combination of extracted footprints, however, no specifics are provided. Likewise, Applicant’s specification discusses the extracted footprints being “indicative” of a particular makeup application technique ([0027]) and subsequently provides examples of these makeup application technique ([0028]). However, Applicant’s specification is silent regarding how the makeup application technique described can be utilized to generate a “footprint” that uniquely identifies the individual whose image was captured. Applicant’s specification merely suggests that these footprints are unique to the subject person ([0040]) without providing any instructions regarding how this uniqueness is determined.
Therefore, the amount of direction provided by the inventor, in addition to the other Wands factors discussed above, is not sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make use the claimed invention without under experimentation.
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 BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437