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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 15, filed 05/19/26.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claim recites receiving one or more collections of virtual makeup looks designed by one or more makeup artists including a first virtual makeup look having a range of colors and adjusting one or more colors of the first virtual makeup look within the range of colors in accordance with a skin tone of the user’s or the avatar’s face, which reduces memory requirements compared to storing separate looks for each different skin tone having different colors (Remarks, filed 05/19/26, pp. 9-10). Applicant argues that while the Specification does not explicitly describe the reduced memory storage, this improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, filed 05/19/26, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification does not disclose or suggest an improvement in memory consumption resulting from the claimed technique. The Specification further does not disclose a particular method in which the range of colors and adjustment of same based on skin tone achieves the claimed technological improvement. Additionally, while the argued improvement could result from the claimed technique, a reduction in required memory is not a disclosed technological improvement that the claim actually requires. That is, the claim doesn’t require memory or storing only the range of colors rather than individual looks/different colors. The claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Further, it is noted that the claim recites in part “receiving, by one or more processors, one or more collections of virtual makeup looks designed by one or more makeup artists including a first virtual makeup look having a range of colors”. Thus, the collection includes a first virtual makeup look having a range of colors, but is not limited thereto.
Still with respect to claim 1, Applicant further argues that the claimed invention allows the user to seamlessly switch between presenting makeup looks on a user’s face and on an avatar’s face (Remarks, filed 05/19/26, p. 10). Examiner notes that this argument recites an improvement to the user experience, as opposed to a technological improvement (i.e., no recited technical component or mechanism that makes the switching “seamless”) (see, e.g., Specification, [0006-0007]; [0010]; [0041-0042]; [0076], where the recited limitations simply provide for allowing the user to view a makeup look on themselves and another makeup look on an avatar). Limitations that are indicative of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application include improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), effecting a transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or the recitation of any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). The use of generic computing components to simulate the application of makeup does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
With respect to claim 15, Applicant argues that claim 15 similarly reduces memory requirements as previously argued above with respect to claim 1 (Remarks, filed 05/19/26, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees, as previously discussed above in regards to claim 1.
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented in detail below.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “including a range of colors, such that the virtual makeup look is adapted to a user’s skin tone; generating” recited in claim 15, ln. 10-12 should likely read “including a range of colors. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “identifying, by the one or more processors, facial features of the user in a camera view or facial features of an avatar representing the user in a virtual reality environment; […] presenting, by the one or more processors, the adjusted virtual makeup look overlaid on the user’s face, such that the components of the adjusted first virtual makeup look are overlaid on corresponding portions of the user’s face; […] and presenting, by the one or more processors, the second virtual makeup look overlaid on the avatar’s face.” It is indefinite as to how the recited identified facial features of “the user in a camera view or facial features of an avatar representing the user in a virtual reality environment” corresponds to the subsequent presentation of a first makeup look overlaid on the user’s face and a second makeup look overlaid on the avatar’s face. That is, the claim recites identifying facial features of the user or facial features of the avatar, as opposed to facial features of both the user and the avatar, and the claim does not further recite whether identification of facial features of the user or the avatar is used to present the makeup look on the other.
Further, the first look is overlaid on corresponding portions of the user’s face, however, the identified facial features may be those of the avatar. Therefore, it is unclear what portions of the user’s face are “corresponding”, as claimed, in the situation when only the avatar’s facial features have been identified.
Thus, the relationship between the identified facial feature, corresponding portions of the user’s face, and overlaid presentations is unclear.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14, analyzing claim 1 as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites in part “A method”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) in the human mind and/or using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 1 recites: A method for providing virtual makeup looks to a user, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, one or more collections of virtual makeup looks designed by one or more makeup artists including a first virtual makeup look having a range of colors (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering));
presenting, by the one or more processors via a user interface, the one or more collections of virtual makeup looks for a user to select from (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data transmission/display));
receiving, at the one or more processors, a selection by the user of the first virtual makeup look of the virtual makeup looks in the one or more collections (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering/data transmission));
in response to receiving the selection, obtaining, by the one or more processors, the selected first virtual makeup look for the user (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering));
identifying, by the one or more processors, facial features of the user in a camera view or facial features of an avatar representing the user in a virtual reality environment (mental process: observation/evaluation);
adjusting, by the one or more processors, one or more colors of the first virtual makeup look within the range of colors in accordance with a skin tone of the user’s face (mental process: observation/evaluation);
presenting, by the one or more processors, the adjusted first virtual makeup look overlaid on the user’s face, such that components of the adjusted first virtual makeup look are overlaid on corresponding portions of the user’s face (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data display));
receiving, at the one or more processors, a selection by the user of a second virtual makeup look of the virtual makeup looks in the one or more collections (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering/data transmission)); and
presenting, by the one or more processors, the second virtual makeup look overlaid on the avatar’s face (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data display)).
The limitations encompass, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computing components (i.e., one or more processors and a user interface). For example, a human could mentally identify facial features of a user (e.g., via an image) and adjust (e.g., mentally) a makeup look in accordance with the identified facial features of the user including adjusting one or more colors of the makeup look in accordance with a skin tone of the user’s face. The claim does not require a particular technological mechanism for performing the identifying limitation, nor a particular algorithm or technical process for performing the adjusting limitation. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The use of one or more processors and a user interface to perform the recited steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply a generic computer as a tool to automate tasks that could be done manually (e.g., identifying features of a user (i.e., based on a photo) and adjusting a makeup look (i.e., color(s)) accordingly) and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computing environment) (see MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). Moreover, the limitations of “receiving”, “presenting”, and “obtaining” data are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and data transmission/display) which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or other technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), recites a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), recites a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or recites any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations of one or more processors and a user interface are well-understood routine, and conventional computer components, as demonstrated by the Specification (see Specification, Figs. 2-3; [0128-0130]). Moreover, the limitations of “receiving”, “obtaining”, and “presenting data” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, as shown above, and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., an inventive concept). There is no indication that the limitations improve the functionality of a computer or improve an existing technology. Rather, the claim is directed to the application of makeup via a computer program. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 is rejected for similar reasoning. While claim 10 further recites the limitations of “providing, by one or more processors, a configuration environment for creating virtual makeup looks to one or more makeup artists”, and “storing, by the one or more processors, the selected first virtual makeup look in a user profile for the user”, the additional limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., merely providing a generic computer environment in which the recited makeup look creation is performed, and data storage). Accordingly, claim 10 is also not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-12, and 14 are dependent on claims 1 and 10 and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Thus, claims 2, 4-12, and 14 are also not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 20, analyzing claim 15 as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 15 recites in part “A method”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) in the human mind and/or using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 15 recites: A method for configuring virtual makeup looks, the method comprising:
presenting, by one or more processors, a user interface depicting a configuration environment to a makeup artist for creating virtual makeup looks, the configuration environment including a set of tools for designing a virtual makeup look, wherein the set of tools includes first user controls for selecting one or more types of makeup or one or more hairstyles, and for selecting relative positions of each component of the virtual makeup look within a face (insignificant extra-solution activity);
providing, by the one or more processors, second user controls for selecting variations of a component of the virtual makeup look for different skin tones including a range of colors, such that the virtual makeup look is adapted to a user’s skin tone (insignificant extra-solution activity);
generating, by the one more processors, a virtual makeup look designed by the makeup artist via the configuration environment based on interactions with the first and second user controls by the makeup artist via the user interface (mental process); and
providing, by the one or more processors, the virtual makeup look for inclusion in a collection of virtual makeup looks, each of which is selectable by users for application on the users’ faces in an augmented reality environment or on the users’ avatars in a virtual reality environment (insignificant extra-solution activity).
The limitations encompass, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computing components (i.e., one or more processors and user interface). For example, a human could design a makeup look (mentally or using pen and paper) by selecting one or more types of makeup, colors, or hairstyles, and relative positions for each component of the makeup look. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The use of one or more processors and a user interface to perform the recited steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply a generic computer/computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computing environment) (see MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). Moreover, the limitations of “presenting” and “providing” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., providing a generic computer environment in which the recited makeup look creation is performed, and data gathering/transmission), as indicated above, and which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or other technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), recites a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), recites a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or recites any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations of one or more processors and a user interface are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components, as demonstrated by the Specification (see Specification, Figs. 2-3; [0128-0130]). Moreover, the limitations of “presenting” and “providing” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, as shown above, and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., an inventive concept). There is no indication that the limitations improve computer capabilities or improve an existing technology. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-18 and 20 are dependent on claim 15, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claim, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Thus, claims 16-18 and 20 are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2020/0285835 A1 – This reference teaches where a user chooses a look, and virtual face recognition software adjusts the selected look’s facial template to the user’s facial map and skin tone.
FR 3115146 A1 – This reference teaches outputting a modified selected makeup product, wherein the color is adjusted to account for skin color and texture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights