CTFR 18/568,119 CTFR 89501 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 12, 2026 for the patent application 18/568,119 originally filed on December 7, 2023. Claims 1-7 are amended. Claims 1-7 are pending. The first office action of January 12, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification” Claim 1 is directed to “a method for displaying an image” (i.e. “a process”), claim 4 is directed to “a method for training an encoding artificial neural network” (i.e. “a process”), claim 6 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), and claim 7 is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.” Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification” However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “generating a photorealistic rendering of a cosmetic product,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity ,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations: Per claim 1: “obtaining a reference image of a cosmetic product applied to a person, obtaining a source image of a user, implementing an encoding artificial neural network configured to determine characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product from the reference image, implementing a realistic physically based rendering engine configured to generate a transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering of the cosmetic product is applied to the user from the source image based on the characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product that are determined by the encoding artificial neural network, and displaying the transformed image on a screen.” Per claim 4: “obtaining a source image of a person, implementing a realistic physically based rendering engine configured to generate a first transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering of the cosmetic product associated with the training set of characterizing parameters is applied to the person from the source image, implementing the encoding artificial neural network in order to determine the characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product from the first transformed image, performing a first comparison between the characterizing parameters determined by the encoding artificial neural network and the training set of characterizing parameters used to generate the first transformed image, and adapting weights of the encoding artificial neural network based on a result of the first comparison.” Per claim 6: “obtaining a reference image of a cosmetic product applied to a person, obtaining a source image of a user, implement an encoding artificial neural network configured to determine characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product from the reference image, implementing a realistic physically based rendering engine configured to generate a transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering of the cosmetic product is applied to the user from the source image based on the characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product that are determined by the encoding artificial neural network, and displaying the transformed image.” Per claim 7: “acquire a source image of a user, storing a reference image of a cosmetic product applied to a person, implement an encoding artificial neural network configured to determine characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product from the reference image, and implementing a realistic physically based rendering engine configured to generate a transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering of the cosmetic product is applied to the user from the source image based on the characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product that are determined by the encoding artificial neural network, and display the transformed image generated by the realistic physically based rendering engine.” These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.” Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application” Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a memory,” “a processing unit,” “a photography device,” and “a screen,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “generating a photorealistic rendering of a cosmetic product,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.” Step 2B – “Significantly More” Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a memory,” “a processing unit,” “a photography device,” and “a screen,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo. Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory,” “a processing unit,” “a photography device,” and “a screen,” as described in paras. [0116]-[0119] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0116] The system SYS comprises a memory MEM storing a computer program PRG. This computer program PRG comprises instructions that, when the program is executed by a computer, prompt said computer to implement the method for generating a photorealistic rendering of a cosmetic product. A reference image is also stored in the memory MEM. This reference image shows a person to whom a cosmetic product is applied.” “[0117] The system SYS also comprises a photography device APH configured to acquire at least one source image of a person. This source image may then be stored in the memory MEM.” “[0118] The system SYS comprises a proc essing unit UT configured to implement the computer program stored in the memory. The processing unit UT is thereby configured to implement the rendering generation method as described above. The processing unit UT is thus configured to generate a transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering of the cosmetic product is applied to the person from the source image based on the reference image stored in memory MEM. “[0119] The system furthermore comprises a screen ECR configured to display the transformed image.” As such, “a memory,” “a processing unit,” “a photography device,” and “a screen,” is reasonably interpreted to be generic, well-known, and conventional data computing elements. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.” In addition, dependent claims 2-3 and 5 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-3 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 4. Therefore, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter. 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. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the make-up product.” The limitation is not introduced in claim 1 or 3. As such, the limitations are lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the characterizing parameters.” The limitations “characterizing parameters of a cosmetic product” and “a plurality f training sets of characterizing parameters” are originally introduced in claim 4. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 4. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its respective dependency to claim 4. Response to Arguments The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 12, 2026 related to claims 1-7 are fully considered, but are not persuasive. Response to Claim Objections The Applicant respectfully argues “The Office Action objects to Claims 1-7 for lacking an initial article, for their use of hyphens, and for including more than one capital letter. Applicant has amended the claims to address these objections.” The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the claim objections are withdrawn. Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Applicant respectfully argues “The Office Action rejects Claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to "software per se." Applicant has amended Claim 6 to recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and has rewritten Claim 7 in independent form such that it no longer depends from Claim 6.” The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections to claims 6 and 7 directed to “software-per-se” are withdrawn. The Applicant respectfully argues “As an initial matter, applicant respectfully reminds the examiner that the claimed subject matter is directed to image processing methods that are inherently technical in nature and therefore eligible for patenting. For example, Claim 1 recites "implementing a realistic physically based rendering engine configured to generate a transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering of the cosmetic product is applied to the user from the source image based on the characterizing parameters of the cosmetic product that are determined by the encoding artificial neural network." The Office Action alleges several different types of abstract idea as potentially being present in Claim 1. (See Office Action, at 3-4.) First, the Office Action suggests that Claim 1 may be directed to a method of organizing human activity, but clearly, a rendering engine configured to generate a transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering is applied to a source image is a technical process, not a human one, so this classification does not apply.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is related to teaching and following rules or instructions, which are categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Also, MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “generating a photorealistic rendering of a cosmetic product,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As such, the argument is not persuasive. The Applicant respectfully argues “Second, the Office Action suggests that Claim 1 is directed to a mental process, but there is no indication in the Office Action that the claimed function of, e.g., the rendering engine could possibly be performed in the human mind. Such a process is not a mental process, because generating a transformed image in which a photorealistic rendering is applied to a source image cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the function of the claimed encoding artificial neural network cannot be performed in the human mind. The (See Charles Kim, Deputy Commissioner for Patents, "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" (August 5, 2025), at 2 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf] ("[A] claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Appellant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive. The Applicant respectfully argues “Third, the Office Action suggests that the independent claims are not eligible because they "simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation." However, this broad characterization is far too general to be relevant because it can be applied to any computer- implemented invention, including many classes of inventions that have repeatedly been deemed eligible for patenting by the Federal Circuit and that have been incorporated as precedential decisions in examination guidelines issued by the USPTO.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is conclusory and has provided no evidence supporting the statement “this broad characterization is far too general to be relevant because it can be applied to any computer- implemented invention, including many classes of inventions that have repeatedly been deemed eligible for patenting by the Federal Circuit and that have been incorporated as precedential decisions in examination guidelines issued by the USPTO.” As such, the argument is not persuasive. The Applicant respectfully argues “Furthermore, even if the claims are deemed to involve an abstract idea on some level, the claim as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For example, Claim 1 improves the performance of the computer in terms of speed and/or computing resource consumption relative to previous methods. (See paragraphs [0021], [0022] of applicant's published application.) In traditional inverse rendering or inverse graphics approaches, estimating physical parameters requires, for each new image, a series of iterations including the generation of synthetic images using a differentiable rendering engine, comparison with the target image, and updating the parameters by backpropagation of the gradient. Such frame-by-frame optimization involves a large number of rendering and gradient calculation iterations, leading to significant consumption of computing resources, memory, and processing time. In contrast, Claim 1 recites a trained neural network to directly predict these parameters from a reference image. Thus, unlike previous methods, the estimation of the cosmetic product's parameters is performed by inference using a pre-trained neural network, without iterative optimization during execution. The parameters are obtained in a single network inference pass and then transmitted to a physical rendering engine. The main calculations are performed during the offline training phase of the neural network, so the application phase no longer requires complex calculations, particularly gradient descent. This results in a significant reduction in computing resources, enabling fast, even real-time, execution on limited hardware resources (such as a smartphone processor).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following: An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) ; Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) ; Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b) ; Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c) ; and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) . PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) ; Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) ; and Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) . PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive. The Applicant respectfully argues “In the interview, the examiner argued that the present claims are analogous to the claims in Recentive Analytics, where the Federal Circuit held that "patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." (See Recentive Analytics V. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2025).) However, a crucial phrase in this holding is "do no more." In Recentive, the claims may have "done no more" than add general machine learning features to ineligible subject matter (i.e., generating schedules for television events), but the presence of machine learning features did not render otherwise eligible claims ineligible; rather, they simply did not transform ineligible claims into eligible claims. In contrast, the present claims most certainly "do more" than add generic machine learning features to otherwise ineligible claims; the present claims involve image processing technology and are inherently of a technical nature; they are already eligible for patenting. Even if the examiner finds the machine learning features of the claims to be general, or to not provide a technical improvement (a conclusion with which applicant disagrees, for the reasons given above), the mere presence of machine learning features in the claims does not defeat the eligibility of the claims. The underlying subject matter to which machine learning features in Recentive were applied is so much different (and less technical) when compared to the instant claims as to render Recentive irrelevant to the pending claims. Accordingly, the rejections under Section 101 should be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, machine learning alone does not exempt the claims from subject-matter eligibility scrutiny. Specifically, in RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. Slip opinion page 14 provides the following: “We see no merit to Recentive’s argument that its patents are eligible because they apply machine learning to this new field of use. We have long recognized that “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment.” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) , 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015);” Second, using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models to “generating a photorealistic rendering of a cosmetic product,” is merely claiming the abstract idea itself. Specifically, in RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. Slip opinion pages 16-17 provide the following: “Recentive claims that the inventive concept in its patents is “using machine learning to dynamically generate optimized maps and schedules based on real-time data and update them based on changing conditions.” Appel- lant’s Br. 44. As the district court correctly recognized, see Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 456 , this is no more than claiming the abstract idea itself . Such a position plainly fails to identify anything in the claims that would “‘trans- form’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566U.S. at 71). In short, we perceive nothing in the claims, whether considered individually or in their ordered combination, that would transform the Machine Learning Training and Network Map patents into something “significantly more” than the abstract idea of generating event schedules and network maps through the application of machine learning . See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70; Broadband iTV, 113 F.4th at 1372.” Finally, the Applicant’s claimed steps of obtaining an image, implementing a neural network and a rendering engine and displaying the transformed image simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn. Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite. Applicant has amended the claims to make the terminology more consistent, to delete reference numbers and characters, to address matters of antecedent basis, and to rewrite Claims 4 and 7 in independent form. Accordingly, the rejections under Section 112 are moot and should be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s amendments have not addressed all of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 (please see above). As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are not withdrawn. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/568,119 Page 13 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights