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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 19, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on February 10, 2026 for the patent application 18/748,805 filed on June 20, 2024. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-19, 21-23, 25-29 and 31 are amended. Claims 9 and 24 are cancelled. Claims 33-34 are new Claims 1-8, 10-23 and 25-34 are pending. The first office action of May 5, 2025; the second office action of August 13, 2025; and the third office action of November 10, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-8, 10-23 and 25-34 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 “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 16 is directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 31 is directed to “a computing 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 the abstract idea of “generating a first one or more directions to the user for performing the cosmetic routine using the cosmetic product,” 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:
“obtain real-time image data representing a face of a user;
generate a three-dimensional face mesh based on the real-time image data, the three-dimensional face mesh representing a plurality of facial features corresponding to the face of the user, as depicted in the real-time image data, the plurality of facial features represented, in the three-dimensional face mesh, via a plurality of facial points corresponding to a plurality of facial landmarks of the face of the user, and a total number of facial points included in the plurality of facial points determined;
obtain an indication of at least one of (i) a cosmetic product, or (ii) a cosmetic routine to be performed upon the face of the user;
responsive to obtaining the indication, generate a first one or more directions to the user for performing the cosmetic routine using the cosmetic product, the one or more directions generated based on one or more features from among the plurality of facial features in the three-dimensional face mesh; and
generate one or more augmented reality (AR) overlays representing of the generated one or more directions, and overlay the one or more AR overlays over the real-time image data in a graphical user interface (GUI).”
Per claim 16:
“obtaining real-time image data representing a face of a user;
generating a three-dimensional face mesh based on the real-time image data, the three-dimensional face mesh representing a plurality of facial features corresponding to the face of the user, as depicted in the real-time image data,
the plurality of facial features represented, in the three-dimensional face mesh, via a plurality of facial points corresponding to a plurality of facial landmarks of the face of the user, and
a total number of facial points included in the plurality of facial points determined based on the immediately available processing power;
storing the three-dimensional face mesh;
obtaining an indication of at least one of (i) a cosmetic product, or (ii) a cosmetic routine to be performed upon the face of the user;
responsive to obtaining the indication, generating one or more directions to the user for performing the cosmetic routine using the cosmetic product, the one or more directions generated based on one or more features from among the plurality of facial features represented in the three-dimensional face mesh; and
causing a representation of the generated one or more directions to be presented to the user via one or more augmented reality (AR) overlays over the real-time image data in a graphical user interface (GUI).”
Per claim 31:
“obtain real-time image data representing a face of a user;
generate a three-dimensional face mesh based on the real-time image data,
the three-dimensional face mesh representing a plurality of facial features corresponding to the face of the user as depicted in the real-time image data,
the plurality of facial features represented, in the three-dimensional face mesh, via a plurality of facial points corresponding to a plurality of facial landmarks of the face of the user, and
a total number of facial points included in the plurality of facial points determined;
store the three-dimensional face mesh;
obtain an indication of at least one of (i) a cosmetic product, or (ii) a cosmetic routine to be performed upon the face of the user;
responsive to obtaining the indication, generate one or more directions to the user for performing the cosmetic routine using the cosmetic product, the one or more directions being generated based on one or more features from among the plurality of facial features in the three-dimensional face mesh; and
cause a representation of the generated one or more directions to be presented to the user via one or more augmented reality (AR) overlays over the real-time image data in a graphical user interface (GUI).”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially 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 “one or more processors of one or more computers,” “one or more non-transitory memories,” “one or more output devices of one or more computing devices,” and “a camera unit,” 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 first one or more directions to the user for performing the cosmetic routine using the 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. “one or more processors of one or more computers,” “one or more non-transitory memories,” “one or more output devices of one or more computing devices,” and “a camera unit,” 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 “one or more processors of one or more computers,” “one or more non-transitory memories,” and “one or more output devices of one or more computing devices,” is reasonably understood to be “user device 102.” These elements as described in para. [0063] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0063] FIG. 1A depicts an example electronic computing device 102 (“user device”) operable to obtain image data of a user of technologies of the present disclosure. Generally speaking, technologies of the present disclosure use the obtained image data to generate, adjust, and/or manipulate the user’s unique 3D face mesh. At a high level, the user device 102 may include one or more processors and one or more memories (e.g., one or more non-transitory memories) storing instructions that, when executed via the one or more processors, cause a camera 106 (i.e., one or more cameras) associated with the user device 102 to obtain image data representing the face of the user (and/or other body parts of the user, e.g., scalp, hair, neck, etc.). The user device 102 may be, for example, a smartphone, a tablet computing device, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a smart wearable computing device (e.g., smart watch), a virtual reality (VR) device (e.g., VR headset), a computing device disposed in a retail environment (e.g., at a cosmetic retailer) and/or another suitable computing device(s).” As such, the Applicant’s “one or more processors of one or more computers,” “one or more non-transitory memories,” and “one or more output devices of one or more computing devices” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a camera unit,” as described in para. [0063] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0063] FIG. 1A depicts an example electronic computing device 102 (“user device”) operable to obtain image data of a user of technologies of the present disclosure. Generally speaking, technologies of the present disclosure use the obtained image data to generate, adjust, and/or manipulate the user’s unique 3D face mesh. At a high level, the user device 102 may include one or more processors and one or more memories (e.g., one or More non-transitory memories) storing instructions that, when executed via the one or more processors, cause a camera 106 (i.e., one or more cameras) associated with the user device 102 to obtain image data representing the face of the user (and/or other body parts of the user, e.g., scalp, hair, neck, etc.). The user device 102 may be, for example, a smartphone, a tablet computing device, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a smart wearable computing device (e.g., smart watch), a virtual reality (VR) device (e.g., WR headset), a computing device disposed in a retail environment (e.g., at a cosmetic retailer) and/or another suitable computing device(s).” As such, “a camera unit,” is reasonably interpreted to be integrated with any known off-the-shelf computer equipment/computer device that is commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-23, 25-30 and 32-34 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-23, 25-30 and 32-34 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 16 or 31. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-23 and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on February 19, 2026 related to claims 1-8, 10-23 and 25-34 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “In view of the amendments to claims 1, 8, 16, 23, and 31 to correct antecedent basis, Applicant respectfully submits that that claims 1-8, 10-23, and 25-32 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and respectfully request withdrawal of the same.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
A. Step 2A, Prong 1 of the USPTO's October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility
(the "2019 USPTO Guidance")
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully disagrees, and submits that independent claim 1, as amended, recites patent-eligible subject matter according to Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 USPTO Guidance because independent claim 1 recites limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.”
The Applicant continues and respectfully argues “The human mind is simply not equipped to generate a three-dimensional face mesh (which may include potentially thousands of facial points) from real-time image data based on processing power which is immediately available to one or more processors in the manner as claimed.”
The Applicant further continues and respectfully argues “The human mind is also not equipped to generate and display AR overlays over real-time image data in accordance with obtained real-time image data in the manner as claimed. Thus, because at least the above-quoted limitations recited by independent claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind, at least for this reason independent claim 1 does not recite a mental process and is patent-eligible in view of the 2019 USPTO Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1.”
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.
B. Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 USPTO Guidance
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 as a whole integrates any such exception into a practical application and is therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 USPTO Guidance.”
The Applicant continues and respectfully argues “The techniques for 3D face mesh generation as described in the specification represent a technological improvement that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Rather than attempting to generate a 3D face mesh regardless of available computing resources-which could result in system failures, excessive processing delays, or degraded performance on resource-constrained devices-the techniques disclosed within the specification can dynamically adjust the number of facial points included in the 3D face mesh based on the processing power that is immediately available to the processors which are generating the 3D facial mesh. Accordingly, the system can operate effectively across a wide range of computing devices with varying capabilities, from smartphones with limited processing power to desktop computers or server-connected systems with substantially greater computational resources.”
The Applicant further continues and respectfully argues “The technological improvement of storing the 3D face mesh would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, he specification at paragraph [0068] describes that "[t]he 3D face mesh 130 identifies each of a plurality of facial points 132 on the face of the user... Each identified facial point 132 may be associated with positional information (e.g., positions in the X-, y-, and z-axes), color information (e.g., hue, saturation, brightness, etc.), and/or other information," and paragraph [0070] of the specification further explains that "the 3D face mesh 130 may, for any use of the technologies of this disclosure, include twenty, fifty, eighty, one hundred, three hundred, five hundred, one thousand, two thousand, five thousand or more discrete points corresponding to the face of the user."
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that storing a 3D face mesh comprising discrete facial points with associated positional and color information requires substantially less memory than storing the raw image data from which the 3D face mesh was generated. For example, a typical smartphone camera captures images at resolutions of 12 megapixels or higher, with each pixel requiring multiple bytes of data for color information. By contrast, a 3D face mesh with even 5,000 discrete points-each storing positional coordinates and color information-represents a dramatically smaller data structure. Storing this compact 3D face mesh representation, rather than the full image data, reduces memory requirements and enables the system to "operate upon the stored 3D face mesh instead of the newly obtained image data, so as to remove the need for additional facial processing," as stated in the paragraph [0084] of the specification.
Thus, even if independent claim 1 was found to recite a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One, nonetheless at Step 2A Prong Two independent claim 1 reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, thus integrating the proffered judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, for at least this reason, independent claim 1 is patent-eligible in view of the 2019 USPTO Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2.”
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).
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).
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 “Therefore, in view of the above discussion, independent claim 1 recites patent-eligible subject matter under both the 2019 USPTO Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1 and the 2019 USPTO Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2.”
The Applicant continues and respectfully argues “Each of independent claims 16 and 31 recites elements similar to those recited by independent claim 1, and dependent claims incorporate by reference each and every element recited by their respective independent claim. As such, for at least for the same reasons as discussed for independent claim 1, each of claims 2-8, 10-23, and 25-32 also recites patent-eligible subject matter. Consequently, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated here and above. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 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 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 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715