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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-14, 17-21, and 23-24 are pending. Claims 9, 15, 16, and 22 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 7, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection of Claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.8-11 and 16-18, filed 015/19/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.11-16, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 14, 17-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fliszar does not generate an application plan for applying cosmetic to a face, nor does it specify a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, or a quantity of cosmetic. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Fliszar is only being directed to teach “control the at least one sensor to collect sensor data relating to at least one of face topography” wherein Fliszar, Para. 135, teaches a navigation system of the drone having two navigation types wherein during the first type of navigation the orientation of the drone is based on a position relative to the initial face wherein the drone captures images and sensor data, i.e., control navigation system or sensor to fly the drone to collect sensor data relating to a face. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The generation of an application plan based on the sensor data is directed to the reference Beardsley, and the application plan including a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic is directed to the reference Shalah-abboud.
Furthermore, Applicant argues Cadet’s sensors are integrated into a wearable head-mounted device as opposed to the sensor being connected to a drone body, and the skin tone data of Cadet is solely used for rendering a visual representation of a face on a display as opposed to for generating an application plan for applying cosmetic to a face. Cadet does not generate an application plan for applying cosmetic to a face, nor does Cadet specify a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, or a quantity of cosmetic. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Cadet is only directed to teach “control the at least one sensor to collect sensor data relating to at least one of face topography, skin tone, and skin texture” wherein Cadet, Para. 6, teaches sensor sources obtaining skin tone information including the color or texture of the surface of a user's skin and combining data to produce a 3D mesh of the user's face portion, i.e., sensor data relating to the face including face topography, skin tone, and skin texture. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Fliszar previously establishes that the sensors are connected to a drone body as required by amended Claim 14. The generation of an application plan based on the sensor data is directed to the reference Beardsley, and the application plan including a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic is directed to the reference Shalah-abboud.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Beardsley generates task planning commands for painting building surfaces as opposed to an application plan for applying cosmetic to a face. Applicant also argues that the system of Beardsley can only determine the nozzle position down to about 2 centimeters which is wholly inadequate for cosmetic application on a human face, and the Applicant argues that Beardsley does not specify a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, or a quantity of cosmetic. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Beardsley is only directed to teach “wherein one of the non-transitory memory of the input controller and the non- transitory memory of the drone controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller or the one or more processors of the drone controller, cause the input controller or the drone controller to generate an application plan based on the sensor data” wherein Beardsley, Para. 42, teaches providing a 3D model of a target surface by scanning the target surface wherein the 3D model is used to provide the underlying scene representation and coordinate frame to which task planning commands like drone trajectory and spray-nozzle control are attached in which the 3D model and task planning commands are used to guide the live system, i.e., generate application plan being the task planning based on sensor data being the surface scan. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The application plan for applying a cosmetic to the face including a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic is directed to the reference Shalah-abboud. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., positional tolerance suitable for cosmetic application on a human face where facial features are measured in millimeters) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Applicant argues Shalah-Abboud teaches a robotic arm makeup machine as opposed to a drone system, Shalah-Abboud’s material application instructions are silent regarding “a shade of cosmetic”, “applicator type”, or “quantity of cosmetic”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Shalah-Abboud is only directed to teach “and wherein the application plan is for application of a cosmetic to the face and includes at least one of a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic” wherein Shalah-abboud, Paras. 6, 103, and 108, teaches instructions of the makeup plan comprise instructions to apply the makeup materials from predefined locations in space that are distant form a surface of the face by a defined distance wherein the material application instructions indicate an application location, a material to be applied, and application properties to be implemented by the automatic makeup applicator, i.e., application plan includes at least one of a type of cosmetic, an application location, and an applicator type. For further clarification, Shalah-abboud, Paras. 51, 75, and 82, teaches calculating and instructing the machine to generate the combination of material in order to provide a customized color or formula to be applied wherein the airbrush may be attachable to multiple alternative nozzles having different sizes and shapes and enable different application patterns and wherein the control unit may be configured to adjust settings to control the amount of makeup being sprayed by the airbrush, i.e., cosmetic face application plan includes a shade of the cosmetic, applicator type, and quantity of cosmetic. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The teaching of a drone system is directed toward the Lai and Fliszar references wherein the teaching of the application plan including the shade, applicator type, and quantity of cosmetic relies on the teachings of Shalah-Abboud.
Additionally, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the references due to the proposed combination requiring bridging fundamentally disparate fields such as the building/structure painting drones of Lai and Beardsley, photography drones of Fliszar, wearable head-mounted devices of Cadet, and stationary robotic arm makeup machines of Shalah-Abboud. Applicant argues that there is no coherent motivation tying them together for the purpose of a drone-based cosmetic application system that collects facial characteristic data, generates an application plan for applying cosmetic to the face, and specifies a shade of cosmetic, applicator type, or quantity of cosmetic. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify invention of Lai by controlling the drone to collect sensor data relating to at least one of face topography to improve the photography of the drone and determine if the photographs are reliable for further use by a user of the autonomous drone (Fliszar, Paras. 111-112). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify invention of Lai and Fliszar by further collecting sensor data relating to at least one of skin tone and skin texture to gather and use the physiological data to improve a user’s experience of an electronic device with respect to interacting with the electronic content and control capabilities of the electronic device (Cadet, Paras. 87-88). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify invention of Lai, Fliszar, and Cadet by further causing the drone controller to generate an application plan based on the sensor data in order to guide the live system for accurate localizations of the drone trajectory and spray nozzle commands (Beardsley, Paras. 42-43). Furthermore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify invention of Lai, Fliszar, Cadet, and Beardsley which includes a drone with a cosmetic distribution system, collects facial sensor data, and generates an application plan to a surface based on sensor data by further specifying the application plan is for application of a cosmetic to the face and include a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic by allowing consumers to save time, money, and improve hygiene when applying makeup (Shalah-abboud, Para. 4). Applicant’s further arguments regarding the system of Beardsley only being able to determine a position of the nozzle outlet down to about 2 centimeters being inadequate for cosmetic application on a human face are moot due to positional tolerances not being recited in the claims. Applicant’s further arguments regarding the system of Shalah-Abboud being a stationary robotic arm that does not account for environmental forces are moot due to environmental forces such as wind and the subject’s movement not being recited in the claims. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 20170259920 A1) in view of Fliszar et al. (US 20230350434 A1), Cadet et al. (US 20240331294 A1), Beardsley et al. (US 20200222929 A1), and Shalah-Abboud et al. (US 20250214250 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Lai teaches "A cosmetic application drone system comprising: a cosmetic application drone including: a drone body, a navigation system connected to the drone body, a cosmetic housing connected to the drone body, a cosmetic distribution system connected to the drone body, a drone wireless communication system connected to the drone body, and a drone controller in communication with the navigation system, the cosmetic distribution system, and the wireless communication system, the drone controller including a non-transitory memory and one or more processors"; (Lai, FIG. 6 and Paras. 20-21, 24, and 73, teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone equipped with an on-board painting system for rendering a visual image on a target structure comprising a communications sub-system for receiving control and navigation information including a flight path for traversing structure in which the drone also includes an on-board automated spray paint delivery system with three color sources in associated containers or canisters that are fixed on the drone wherein the color source is electronically activated to supply an amount of paint to a manifold or mixer device that includes a spray nozzle and wherein the mobile device is configured as a UAV base station equipped with device processor, memory, and a transceiver for transmitting wireless signals with commands or instructions for effecting navigation and painting operations and wherein the UAV instrumentation includes a flight controller/processor and computer readable storage mediums, i.e., drone system comprises a drone body, navigation system, cosmetic housing being the paint canisters, cosmetic distribution system being the spray nozzle, a wireless communication system in communication with the navigation system and cosmetic distribution system, and the controller includes memory and processors);
"and a user input system comprising: a control wireless communication system selectively in communication with the drone wireless communication system"; (Lai, Paras. 24 and 34, teaches the user's mobile device is configured as a UAV base station for transmitting wireless signals with commands or instructions for effecting navigation and painting operations wherein a user's mobile device may guide the real-time positions of the UAV to a target or initial position relative to the target structure in response to received user commands, i.e., user input system comprising a control of wireless communication system selectively in communication with the drone wireless communication system);
"a user interface"; (Lai, FIG. 2B and Para. 29, teaches a visual user interface at the camera or remotely located device allows a user to draw a target pattern or desired image as an overlay onto the image of the target structure, i.e., a user interface);
"and an input controller in communication with the control wireless communication system, the input controller including a non-transitory memory and one or more processors"; (Lai, FIG. 6 and Paras. 7, 20-21, 24, and 73, teaches a controller device at the UAV configured to receive instruction signals for controlling real time navigation of the UAV to a target location at the target structure wherein the transmitted signals may be wireless and wherein the controller contains processors and computer readable storage mediums).
However, Lai does not explicitly teach "at least one sensor connected to the drone body, wherein the non-transitory memory of the drone controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the drone controller, control the at least one sensor to collect sensor data relating to at least one of face topography, skin tone, and skin texture; wherein one of the non-transitory memory of the input controller and the non- transitory memory of the drone controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller or the one or more processors of the drone controller, cause the input controller or the drone controller to generate an application plan based on the sensor data; and wherein the application plan is for application of a cosmetic to the face and includes at least one of a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fliszar teaches "at least one sensor connected to the drone body, wherein the non-transitory memory of the drone controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the drone controller, control the at least one sensor to collect sensor data relating to at least one of face topography, "; (Fliszar, Para. 135, teaches a navigation system of the drone having two navigation types wherein during the first type of navigation the orientation of the drone is based on a position relative to the initial face wherein the drone captures images and sensor data, i.e., control navigation system or sensor to fly the drone to collect sensor data relating to a face).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai by including the collection of sensor data relating to a face taught by Fliszar. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references to improve the photography of the drone and determine if the photographs are reliable for further use by a user of the autonomous drone (Fliszar, Paras. 111-112).
However, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar does not explicitly teach “control the at least one sensor to collect sensor data relating to at least one of face topography, skin tone, and skin texture; wherein one of the non-transitory memory of the input controller and the non- transitory memory of the drone controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller or the one or more processors of the drone controller, cause the input controller or the drone controller to generate an application plan based on the sensor data; and wherein the application plan is for application of a cosmetic to the face and includes at least one of a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Cadet teaches “control the at least one sensor to collect sensor data relating to at least one of face topography, skin tone, and skin texture”; (Cadet, Para. 6, teaches sensor sources obtaining skin tone information including the color or texture of the surface of a user's skin and combining data to produce a 3D mesh of the user's face portion, i.e., sensor data relating to the face including face topography, skin tone, and skin texture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai and Fliszar by including the collection of sensor data relating to the face, skin tone, and skin texture taught by Cadet. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves a user’s experience of an electronic device with respect to interacting with the electronic content and control capabilities of the electronic device (Cadet, Paras. 87-88).
However, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar and Cadet does not explicitly teach “wherein one of the non-transitory memory of the input controller and the non- transitory memory of the drone controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller or the one or more processors of the drone controller, cause the input controller or the drone controller to generate an application plan based on the sensor data; and wherein the application plan is for application of a cosmetic to the face and includes at least one of a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Beardsley teaches "wherein one of the non-transitory memory of the input controller and the non- transitory memory of the drone controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller or the one or more processors of the drone controller, cause the input controller or the drone controller to generate an application plan based on the sensor data"; (Beardsley, Para. 42, teaches providing a 3D model of a target surface by scanning the target surface wherein the 3D model is used to provide the underlying scene representation and coordinate frame to which task planning commands like drone trajectory and spray-nozzle control are attached in which the 3D model and task planning commands are used to guide the live system, i.e., generate application plan being the task planning based on sensor data being the surface scan).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai, Fliszar, and Cadet by including the generation of an application plan based on sensor data taught by Beardsley. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it guides the live system for accurate localizations of the drone trajectory and spray nozzle commands (Beardsley, Paras. 42-43).
However, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, and Beardsley does not explicitly teach "and wherein the application plan is for application of a cosmetic to the face and includes at least one of a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Shalah-abboud teaches "and wherein the application plan is for application of a cosmetic to the face and includes at least one of a shade of cosmetic, an applicator type, and a quantity of cosmetic"; (Shalah-abboud, Paras. 6, 103, and 108, teaches instructions of the makeup plan comprise instructions to apply the makeup materials from predefined locations in space that are distant form a surface of the face by a defined distance wherein the material application instructions indicate an application location, a material to be applied, and application properties to be implemented by the automatic makeup applicator, i.e., application plan includes at least one of a type of cosmetic, an application location, and an applicator type. For further clarification, Shalah-abboud, Paras. 51, 75, and 82, teaches calculating and instructing the machine to generate the combination of material in order to provide a customized color or formula to be applied wherein the airbrush may be attachable to multiple alternative nozzles having different sizes and shapes and enable different application patterns and wherein the control unit may be configured to adjust settings to control the amount of makeup being sprayed by the airbrush, i.e., cosmetic face application plan includes a shade of the cosmetic, applicator type, and quantity of cosmetic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai, Fliszar, Cadet, and Beardsley by including the application plan being for applying cosmetic to a face including a shade of cosmetic, applicator type, and quantity of cosmetic taught by Shalah-Abboud. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it allows consumers to save time, money, and improve hygiene when applying makeup (Shalah-abboud, Para. 4).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Chekh et al. (US 20230132201 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud does not explicitly teach "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to display the application plan and cause the input controller to receive input from a user to change or approve the application plan".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chekh teaches "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to display the application plan and cause the input controller to receive input from a user to change or approve the application plan"; (Chekh, Paras. 61 and 75, teaches a treatment visualization component providing a user interface with tools allowing the user to provide feedback on the treatment plan by changing positions and shapes and the process can be repeated until the user approves the plan, i.e., user interface displays plan and receive input from a user to change or approve the plan).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai, Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud wherein the application plan is applied by a drone with a nozzle by including the user interface displaying the application plan and allowing the user to change or approve the plan taught by Chekh. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves positioning, convenience, and satisfaction (Chekh, Para. 47, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve positioning, convenience, and patient outcomes).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Silva (US 20140305466 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud does not explicitly teach "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14, wherein the application plan is also based on at least one of previously approved application plans, expected lighting conditions, event information, and makeup style".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Silva teaches "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14, wherein the application plan is also based on at least one of previously approved application plans, expected lighting conditions, event information, and makeup style"; (Silva, Para. 2, teaches a makeup artist creating a customized makeup plan for the client depending on skin color, tone, facial structure, body type, lighting, setting, the desired character, and others, i.e., application plan based on expected lighting conditions, event information being the setting, and makeup style being the desired character).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai, Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud wherein the application plan is applied by a drone with a nozzle by including the application plan being based on lighting, events, and style taught by Silva. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it prevents the exaggeration of any flaws (Silva, Para. 2, teaches the motivation of combination to be to prevent the exaggeration of any flaws).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Silva teaches "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 18, wherein the expected lighting conditions are either collected as sensor data by the at least one sensor or entered into the user interface"; (Fliszar, Para. 107, teaches the functional groups including sensors such as a light detector, i.e., lighting conditions collected as sensor data).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Silva references presented in the rejection of Claims 14 and 18. Thus, the system recited in claim 19 is met by Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Silva.
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, Silva, Lin et al. (US 20210258534 A1), and Kolleri (US 20180068173 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Silva does not explicitly teach "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 18, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to display a plurality of event types and a plurality of makeup styles, and wherein the event information is one of the plurality of event types displayed using the user interface and the makeup style is one of the plurality of makeup styles displayed using the user interface".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lin teaches "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 18, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to display (Lin, Para. 4, teaches live video comprising a plurality of images frames of the users in which the computing device obtains selection of at least one makeup effect and generates a user interface displaying the live video in a virtual mirror with at least one makeup effect applied to a facial region of the user, i.e., display a potential plurality of makeup styles being the at least one makeup effect and displaying the makeup style using the user interface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai, Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Silva by including the display of a plurality of makeup styles and displaying the one of the plurality of styles using the user interface taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the users’ ability to experience virtual makeup (Lin, Para. 3, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve users' ability to fully experience virtual application of makeup effects).
However, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, Silva, and Lin does not explicitly teach "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 18, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to display a plurality of event types using the user interface
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kolleri teaches "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 18, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to display a plurality of event types (Kolleri, Para. 175, teaches selecting an event type from one or more of the supported event types designated on the user interface, i.e., user interface displays a plurality of event types and the event information is one of the plurality of event types displayed using the user interface being the user selecting the event type).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai, Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, Silva, and Lin by including the display of a plurality of event types and displaying one of the event types using the user interface taught by Kolleri. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves application performance (Koller, Para. 43, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve application performance by providing superior event correlation).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Zou (US 20230154083 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud does not explicitly teach "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to provide at least one of tutorials, tips, and cosmetic recommendations based on the sensor data".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zou teaches "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14, wherein the non-transitory memory of the input controller stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the input controller, cause the user interface to provide at least one of tutorials, tips, and cosmetic recommendations based on the sensor data";(Zou, FIGs. 3A-3D and Paras. 154, 158, and 161, teaches obtaining a face image of the user collected by the camera and displays a user interface so that the user may select an intelligently recommended makeup effect image, i.e., user interface provides at least a cosmetic recommendation based on sensor data being the face image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai in view of Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud by including the user interface providing at least one of cosmetic recommendations based on sensor data taught by Zou. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it performs modification improvement (Zou, Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to perform modification and improvement based on a makeup effect).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, Shalah-Abboud, and Van der Steur (US 20220169387 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of references of Lai in view Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud does not explicitly teach "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14 comprising a plurality of cosmetic application drones, the plurality of drones configured to apply cosmetic to multiple users simultaneously or to apply cosmetic on a single user simultaneously".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Van der Steur teaches "The cosmetic application drone system of claim 14 comprising a plurality of cosmetic application drones, the plurality of drones configured to apply cosmetic to multiple users simultaneously or to apply cosmetic on a single user simultaneously";(Van der Steur, FIG. 3 and Paras. 21 and 48, teaches a plurality of drone-based surface treatment material delivery systems to paint an object, i.e., a plurality of drones configured to apply a cosmetic to a single object simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lai in view Fliszar, Cadet, Beardsley, and Shalah-Abboud by including the use of a plurality of drones to apply a cosmetic to a single object simultaneously taught by Van der Steur. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it provides an automated paint delivery system (Van der Steur, Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to provide an automated drone-based paint delivery system).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 24 are allowed. The following is the examiner’s stated reason for indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of limitations recited in Claims 1 and 24. Regarding Claim 1, Lai et al. (US 20170259920 A1) teaches "A cosmetic application drone comprising: a drone body; at least one sensor connected to the drone body, the at least one sensor configured to collect sensor data"; (Lai, FIG. 6 and Para. 20, teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone with a well-known Quadcopter structure comprising a variety of sensors wherein data obtained from sensors are transmitted to ground equipment, i.e., drone comprising a drone body and at least one sensor which collects sensor data);
"a navigation system connected to the drone body"; (Lai, FIG. 6 and Para. 20, teaches the drone includes a communications sub-system for receiving control and navigation information including a flight path for traversing a structure, i.e., navigation system connected to drone body);
"a cosmetic housing connected to the drone body"; (Lai, FIG. 6 and Para. 21, teaches a drone including an on-board automated spray paint delivery system including three color sources located within associated containers that are fixed on the drone, i.e., cosmetic housing to store cosmetic material which is connected to the drone body);
"a cosmetic distribution system connected to the drone body"; (Lai, FIG. 6 and Para. 21, teaches the automated spray paint delivery system includes a manifold and spray nozzle connected with each paint canister and each color source is electronically activated to supply an amount of color paint to a manifold or mixer device that includes a spray nozzle also actuated under electronic control to spray a desired color of paint on a surface, i.e., cosmetic distribution system connected to the drone body);
"and a controller in communication with the at least one sensor, the navigation system, the cosmetic distribution system, the controller including a non-transitory memory and one or more processors"; (Lai, FIG. 6 and Paras. 7, 20-21, and 73 teaches UAV instrumentation including a flight controller/processor, a navigation system, an altimeter, sensors and mapping systems and wherein the controller device configures the UAV to automatically actuate the paint fluid dispensing system in which these instructions may be provided to a processor and the instructions may be stored on a computer readable storage medium, i.e., controller in communication with the sensor, navigation system, and cosmetic distribution system in which it also includes memory and processors).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fliszar et al. (US 20230350434 A1) teaches "wherein the non-transitory memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to: control the navigation system to fly the cosmetic application drone to collect sensor data relating to a face"; (Fliszar, Para. 135, teaches a navigation system of the drone having two navigation types wherein during the first type of navigation the orientation of the drone is based on a position relative to the initial face wherein the drone captures images and sensor data, i.e., control navigation system to fly the drone to collect sensor data relating to a face);
"control the at least one sensor to collect the sensor data relating to the face; store the sensor data relating to the face in the memory"; (Fliszar, Para. 23, teaches the drone hovering and stabilizing to continue to take images of the face or person or use other sensors to determine whether the drone is stable wherein the drone navigates to one or more waypoints while capturing images and storing sensor data, i.e., control sensor to collect the data relating to the face and storing the sensor data in memory).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Liang (US 20180164610 A1) teaches "generate as a face map from the sensor data relating to the face"; (Liang, Para. 31, teaches a digital 3D camera module having at least a plurality of image sensors which enables a three-dimensional face map of the tested subject to be generated, i.e., generate a face map from the sensor data relating to the face).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Beardsley et al. (US 20200222929 A1), Paras. 28 and 30, teaches generating a 3D map of the target surface prior to painting operations and storing it in the memory on the drone wherein the drone is autonomous and can sense the environment about its body with sensors as it flies or makes a painting run and its controller can process sensor output to determine 3D position and localization which is used to implement the paint trajectory as well as to provide live painting or depositing via the paint commands using the 3D map of the surfaces of the targeted structure as opposed to explicitly applying the cosmetic to a human user by using the face map generated from sensor data of the user’s face. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the generated face map from the face related sensor data generated by Liang with the navigation and cosmetic distribution system of the drone of Beardsley since Beardsley teaches applying paint to large target surfaces from generated 3D maps as opposed to face maps generated from users. Therefore, Beardsley does not explicitly teach "and control the navigation system and the cosmetic distribution system to apply a cosmetic to the user using the face map".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Wake et al. (WO 2022018790 A1) teaches "and cease controlling at least one of the navigation system and the cosmetic distribution system when one of the cosmetic housing and the cosmetic distribution system is engaged manually by a user"; (Wake, Pg. 2 final paragraph and Pg. 6 paragraphs 6-8, teaches switching the operation mode of the unmanned aerial vehicle from the autonomous flight mode to the manual control mode so the user can instruct the vehicle to stop moving, land, and stop spraying the sprayed object wherein a user may perform a touch operation of the emergency stop button to generate a control signal to instruct the hovering and stopping of spraying for the drone, i.e., cease control of navigation and distribution when the drone systems are engaged manually by a user).
Therefore, none of the cited prior art references alone or in combination teach the ordered combination of limitations of "and control the navigation system and the cosmetic distribution system to apply a cosmetic to the user using the face map” with the rest of the claim limitations. Claims 2-8 and 10-13 are dependent upon Claim 1 and contain the above indicated allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 24, Fliszar teaches "A drone-based method of applying cosmetics by controlling a cosmetic application drone using a drone controller, the method comprising: controlling, using the drone controller, a navigation system of the cosmetic distribution drone to fly the cosmetic application drone to collect sensor data relating to a face"; (Fliszar, Paras. 125 and 135, teaches the movement of the autonomous drone may be controlled by a remote controller and wherein a navigation system of the drone having two navigation types wherein during the first type of navigation the orientation of the drone is based on a position relative to the initial face wherein the drone captures images and sensor data, i.e., control navigation of the drone with a controller to fly the drone to collect sensor data relating to a face);
"controlling, using the drone controller, at least one sensor of the cosmetic distribution drone to collect the sensor data relating to the face"; (Fliszar, Paras. 23, 135, and 146, teaches the autonomous drone capturing images and sensor data during navigation wherein drone position is relative to the initial face, i.e., controlling the sensor of the drone to collect sensor data relating to the face);
"storing, using the drone controller, the sensor data relating to the face in a memory in communication with the drone controller"; (Fliszar, Para. 23, teaches the drone navigates to one or more waypoints while capturing images and storing sensor data wherein the images are of the face of the person, i.e., storing the sensor data relating to the face in memory in communication with the drone).
Liang teaches "generating, using the drone controller, a face map from the sensor data relating to the face, the face map identifying locations of one or more facial features of the face"; (Liang, Para. 31, teaches a digital 3D camera module having at least a plurality of image sensors which enables a three-dimensional face map of the tested subject to be generated wherein the 3D face map of the tested subject enables a fitting of the frame style to the subject which includes a tightness of the frame to the face as well as fitting of the nose pad to the facial structures, i.e., generate a face map from the sensor data relating to the face wherein the face map identifies locations of a facial feature of the face being the fitting of the nose pad of the projected frames to the facial structures).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Stasiowski et al. (US 20240044651 A1) teaches "receiving, using the drone controller, selections entered in a user interface of a user input system and communicated by an input controller of the user input system to the drone controller"; (Stasiowski, Para. 16, teaches displaying at least one suggested exploration route on a display of the user device, receive the selected exploration route from user input, and transmit the selected exploration route to the UAV, i.e., receive selections entered in a user interface of a user input system and communicated by an input controller/processor of the user input system to the drone).
Furthermore, Beardsley, Paras. 10, 28, 30, and 36 teaches a spray pattern selector that adjusts the nozzle to define a shape of a spray pattern output by the nozzle in which a motor/actuator is selectively opened and closed in response to control signals from the controller in the body to spray the paint and wherein a 3D map is generated of the target surface prior to painting operations and storing it in the memory on the drone wherein the drone is autonomous and can sense the environment about its body with sensors as it flies or makes a painting run and its controller can process sensor output to determine 3D position and localization which is used to implement the paint trajectory as well as to provide live painting or depositing via the paint commands using the 3D map of the surfaces of the targeted structure as opposed to explicitly controlling the navigation and cosmetic distribution of the drone to apply a cosmetic to the face of a user based on the face map including identified locations of one or more facial features of the face and the selection a user makes on a user interface. Therefore, Beardsley does not explicitly teach "and controlling, using the drone controller, the navigation system of the cosmetic application drone and a cosmetic distribution system of the cosmetic application drone to apply a cosmetic to the face based on the face map and the selections”.
Therefore, none of the cited prior art references alone or in combination teach the ordered combination of limitations of "and controlling, using the drone controller, the navigation system of the cosmetic application drone and a cosmetic distribution system of the cosmetic application drone to apply a cosmetic to the face based on the face map and the selections" with the rest of the claim limitations. Hence, Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 24 are allowable.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights