DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 12 and 23 recite a method comprising:
obtaining a three-dimensional face mesh representing a plurality of facial features corresponding to a face of a user;
obtaining image data representing a face of another person and indicating a desired cosmetic appearance of the user;
based upon the obtained image data, generating a personalized look comprising a plurality of cosmetic products to be applied to the face of the user to replicate the desired cosmetic appearance on the plurality of facial features of the user; and
causing an indication of the generated look to be presented to the user via one or more user interfaces at one or more computing devices accessible to the user.
The limitations of obtaining a face mesh, obtaining image data, generating a look, and presenting the look, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the method is performed by one or more “processors” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processors” language, “obtaining”, “generating”, and “causing” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually viewing face mesh and image data, and producing and presenting a list of cosmetic products. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the claimed steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of obtaining data, analyzing it, and delivering results) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 recite the same abstract idea as in claim their respective parent claims, and only recite generic computer display technology (e.g. displaying virtual application, augmented reality, machine learning models, being used to perform further aspects of the abstract idea, such as depicting the face of the user, generating directions, receiving feedback, etc.) Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prout (US Patent No. 11,178,956 B1) in view of Kosecoff (US 2023/0101374 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 23, Prout discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions (as per claim 1), a method (as per claim 12), and computing system (as per claim 23) with one or more processors configured to:
obtain a picture representing a plurality of facial features corresponding to a face of a user (column 5, lines 33-53 – user takes picture of face and uploads it);
obtain image data representing a face of another person and indicating a desired cosmetic appearance of the user (column 6, lines 38-50 – select one or more images or photographs of other people);
based upon the obtained image data, generate a personalized look (ideal/baseline look – column 6, lines 14-29) comprising a plurality of cosmetic products to be applied to the face of the user to replicate the desired cosmetic appearance on the plurality of facial features of the user (column 7, lines 27-34 – recommendation may include which cosmetics to use); and
cause an indication of the generated look to be presented to the user via (cause recommendations to be provided to user device – column 7, lines 35-43) (as per claims 1, 12 and 23).
To the extent that the picture of the user does not represent a three-dimensional face mesh, Kosecoff discloses a similar system for capturing an image of a user and simulating the appearance of cosmetic on the image (see e.g. Par. 19), wherein the facial features of the user are represented by a three-dimensional mesh (Par’s. 47, 50, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Prout by using a three-dimensional mesh to represent the facial features, as taught by Kosecoff, to obtain predictable results of providing a more detailed representation of the user’s face.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10, 13-19, 21 and 22, Prout further discloses:
instructions to cause a virtual application of the plurality of cosmetic products to be presented via the one or more user interfaces (column 9, line 64 – column 10, line 10 – cosmetics virtually applied to the image) (as per claims 2 and 13),
instructions to display a plurality of augmented reality elements imposed over real-time image data depicting the face of the user, the plurality of augmented reality elements representing application of respective ones of the plurality of cosmetic products to the face of the user (column 9, line 64 – column 10, line 10 – applied to images as they are uploaded) (as per claims 3 and 14),
instructions to generate a plurality of directions for a cosmetic routine for applying at least one of the plurality of cosmetic products to the face of the user; and cause the plurality of directions to be presented via the one or more user interfaces at the one or more computing devices accessible to the user (column 6, lines 6-29 – ideal description includes instructions for using the recommended cosmetics) (as per claims 4 and 15),
instructions to obtain further image data representing the face of the user while the user performs the cosmetic routine; determine, based upon the further image data, whether the user accurately followed at least one of the plurality of directions; and cause an indication of whether the user accurately followed the at least one of the plurality of directions to be presented via the one or more user interfaces (column 9, lines 39-55 – AI engine compares updated image to baseline facial model and determines whether to provide corrective recommendations, instructions or comments) (as per claims 5 and 16),
instructions to receive, via the one or more user interfaces, user feedback indicating user satisfaction with the generated look; and adapt the generated look based upon the received user feedback ((column 10, lines 5-10 – determine if user likes changes or recommendations) (as per claims 6 and 17),
instructions to generate the personalized look further based upon an identification of one or more cosmetic routines previously performed by the user (column 7, line 62 – column 8, line 10 – Routine/History) (as per claims 7 and 18),
instructions to generate the personalized look further based upon an identification of one or more cosmetic products owned or previously worn by the user (column 5, line 54 – column 6, line 5; column 7, lines 16-34) (as per claims 8 and 19),
instructions to apply one or more machine learning models to the obtained image data to extract facial features of the another person; compare the extracted facial features of the another person to corresponding ones of the plurality of facial features of the user; and generate the personalized look based upon the comparison of the facial features of the user to the extracted facial features of the another person (column 6, lines 51-63) (as per claims 10 and 21), and
at least one of the one or more computers is at least one of the one or more computing devices accessible to the user (smartphone – column 4, lines 10-18) (as per claims 11 and 22).
6. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prout (US Patent No. 11,178,956 B1) in view of Kosecoff (US 2023/0101374 A1), and further in view of Minvielle (US 2013/0309637 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Prout discloses instructions to identify the one or more cosmetic products owned or previously worn by the user (e.g. by receiving preferences – column 5, line 54 – column 6, line 5), but does not appear to disclose identifying based upon an identification of one or more smart packaging elements associated with the one or more cosmetic products owned or previously worn by the user. However, Minvielle discloses that the concept and advantages of utilizing smart packaging to identifying cosmetics were well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Prout and Kosecoff by utilizing smart packaging to identify the user’s cosmetic products. Such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715