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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 16 October 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the IDS does not list any U.S. Patents, U.S. Patent Application Publications, Foreign Patents, or Non-Patent Literature. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the facial cleansing brush recited in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a self-cleaning mechanism” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalah-Abboud (US 2025/0214250) in view of Lee (KR 20210083109 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shalah-Abboud teaches a system (100) to apply facial makeup, the system comprising: a base compartment (150) having a base compartment proximal end and a base compartment distal end, wherein the base compartment is configured to store a makeup cartridge (160); an application station disposed at the base compartment distal end, wherein the application station is configured to apply airbrush makeup on the user face (via airbrush 120).
Shalah-Abboud does not teach a preparation station disposed at the base compartment proximal end, wherein the preparation station is configured to clean a user face.
Lee teaches a preparation station (10) that is configured to clean a user face (Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Shalah-Abboud with a preparation station disposed at the base compartment proximal end, wherein the preparation station is configured to clean a user face, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of enabling a user to easily remove makeup (Lee, pg. 3, last two lines).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the preparation station and the application station are disposed on a base compartment top portion (Shalah-Lee teaches the application station on top of base 150 and Lee teaches the preparation station on top of base 10).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the preparation station comprises a compartment (Lee 11) configured to receive the user face.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the preparation station further comprises a facial cleansing brush (Lee 20) configured to oscillate and remove debris from the user face.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shalah-Abboud teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the preparation station is connected to the base compartment, and wherein the preparation station is configured to receive (via 30) water and hydration mist stored in a base compartment interior portion.
It is noted that claim 7 does not positively recite that the base compartment stores water and hydration mist, merely that the preparation station is configured to “receive” water and hydration mist.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the application station comprises a face mask (Shalah-Abboud 102a, 102b) configured to receive the user face (Shalah-Abboud Fig. 1B), and wherein the face mask comprises cut-outs aligned with one or more face features of the user face (Shalah-Abboud, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the face mask is connected with the makeup cartridge, and wherein the face mask is configured to apply airbrush makeup on the user face using the makeup cartridge (as shown in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising a transceiver (Shalah-Abboud discloses connecting a user device via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, which requires a transceiver) configured to receive images of the user face from a user device (195).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 11 further comprising a controller (Shalah-Abboud 607) communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the controller is configured to: obtain the images of the user face from the transceiver (Shalah-Abboud 310); identify skin tone and face structure of a user based on the images (Shalah-Abboud ¶0124); determine a makeup type based on the identification of the skin tone and the face structure (Shalah-Abboud ¶0126); and transmit a makeup recommendation to the user device based on the makeup type (Shalah-Abboud 330).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain inputs from the user device responsive to transmitting the makeup recommendation (Shalah-Abboud 320); and transmit a command signal to the application station to apply the airbrush makeup based on the inputs (Shalah-Abboud 346).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Shalah-Abboud teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the application station is configured to apply the airbrush makeup in one or more steps responsive to receiving the command signal (Shalah-Abboud ¶0175), and wherein the one or more steps comprises applying airbrush foundation, applying contour, applying eye makeup, applying lipstick, applying powder, and applying setting spray (Shalah-Abboud ¶0075).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 2 further comprising an inlet (Lee, see pg. 3, ll. 8-9) on the base compartment top portion, wherein the inlet is configured to receive water.
Regarding claim 20, Shalah-Abboud teaches a system (100) to apply facial makeup, the system comprising: a base compartment (150) having a base compartment proximal end and a base compartment distal end, wherein the base compartment is configured to store a makeup cartridge (160); an application station (180) disposed at the base compartment distal end, wherein the application station is configured to apply air brush makeup (via airbrush 120) on the user face, wherein the application station comprises a face mask (1021, 102b, 103b) configured to receive the user face, and wherein the face mask comprises cut-outs aligned with one or more face features of the user face (Fig. 1B).
Shalah-Abboud does not teach a preparation station disposed at the base compartment proximal end, wherein the preparation station is configured to clean a user face.
Lee teaches a preparation station (10) that is configured to clean a user face (Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Shalah-Abboud with a preparation station disposed at the base compartment proximal end, wherein the preparation station is configured to clean a user face, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of enabling a user to easily remove makeup (Lee, pg. 3, last two lines).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalah-Abboud and Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Donohue (US 2023/0148425).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 2 but does not teach a mirror disposed between the preparation station and the application station, wherein the mirror is disposed on the base compartment top portion.
Donohue teaches a mirror (170, see ¶0078) disposed on a base portion (110).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Shalah-Abboud with a mirror disposed between the preparation station and the application station, wherein the mirror is disposed on the base compartment top portion, as taught by Donohue for the purpose of enabling a user to see the applied makeup.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shalah-Abboud, Lee and Donohue teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the mirror comprises light emitting devices at mirror edges (Donohue, ¶0078).
Regarding claim 19, Shalah-Abboud teaches a system (100) to apply facial makeup, the system comprising: a base compartment (150) having a base compartment proximal end and a base compartment distal end, wherein the base compartment is configured to store a makeup cartridge (160); an application station (180) disposed at the base compartment distal end, wherein the application station is configured to apply air brush makeup on the user face (via 120).
Shalah-Abboud does not teach a preparation station disposed at the base compartment proximal end, wherein the preparation station is configured to clean a user face or a mirror disposed between the preparation station and the application station.
Lee teaches a preparation station (10) that is configured to clean a user face (Abstract).
Donohue teaches a mirror (170, see ¶0078) disposed on a base portion (110).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Shalah-Abboud with a preparation station disposed at the base compartment proximal end, wherein the preparation station is configured to clean a user face, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of enabling a user to easily remove makeup (Lee, pg. 3, last two lines).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Shalah-Abboud with a mirror disposed between the preparation station and the application station, wherein the mirror is disposed on the base compartment top portion, as taught by Donohue for the purpose of enabling a user to see the applied makeup.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 1 but does not teach a speaker configured to output instructions to a user.
Donohue teaches a speaker configured to output instructions to a user (¶0081).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Shalah-Abboud with a speaker configured to output instructions to a user as taught by Donohue for the purpose of communicating audio commands, suggestions and warnings to the user (Donohue ¶0081).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalah-Abboud and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitelaw (US 11568675).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Shalah-Abboud and Lee teaches the system of claim 1 but does not teach a self-cleaning mechanism configured to clean the system automatically.
Whitelaw teaches a self-cleaning mechanism (col. 6, ll. 39-58) configured to clean a system automatically.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Shalah-Abboud with a self-cleaning mechanism configured to clean the system automatically as taught by Whitelaw for the purpose of making the device more hygienic (Whitelaw, col. 2, ll. 63-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Wong, Abraham, Chang, Wong, Staton, and Wong references are cited as being directed to the state of the art of systems for washing a face and/or applying makeup automatically.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754