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 .
Specification
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
3. The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
4. The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink in paragraph 5. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mauger (US 11576478 B2), hereinafter Mauger.
Regarding claim 1, Mauger teaches a method for simulating an application of a make-up product to a body surface, comprising implementing a rendering engine configured to apply a make-up effect comprising at least one colour transformation (Fig. 3, Col. 9 lines 20-31, wherein the processor 11 adapted to receive an input image to generate a modified image simulating the rendering of make-up on the body area is interpreted as a rendering engine configured to apply a make-up effect to a body surface; Col. 11 lines 13-18, wherein the processor generates a modified image of a body area by replacing the color parameters of the body area, which is interpreted as a colour transformation) to at least a portion of incoming image data comprising the body surface to be virtually made-up (Col. 9 ,line 63 – Col. 10 line 2, wherein image data of a body area is obtained; Col. 10 lines 14-18, wherein the body area is precisely located within the image data), and to generate transformed image data simulating said application of make-up product according to at least one colour parameter characteristic of the make-up product to be virtually applied (Fig. 4a-4d, Col. 11, lines 13-18, generating a modified image simulating the rendering of a make-up product on the given body according to obtained color parameters determined by a trained model; Col. 10, lines 6-15, wherein the color parameters of the trained model is based on the color parameters of a selected make-up product, which is interpreted as the color parameter characteristic of the make-up product to be virtually applied), characterized in that it comprises a prior step of determining said characteristic colour parameter comprising: - acquiring a colour datum of said body surface to be virtually made-up (Fig. 2, Col. 10 lines 27-32, wherein obtaining the color parameters of the pixels of the body area to apply make up on is interpreted as acquiring a color datum of the body surface to be virtually made-up); - acquiring a value of the characteristic colour parameter of the make-up product as a function of said colour data of the body surface to be virtually made-up (Fig. 2, Col. 10 lines 38-50, lines 56-60, wherein using a machine learning model to output the color parameter values of the body area made-up with the selected make-up product is interpreted as acquiring a color parameter of the make-up product as a function of the color data of the body surface to be virtually made-up).
Regarding claim 2, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Mauger teaches the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the body area to be virtually made-up is a lip area, with the cosmetic make-up product being a lip make-up product, in particular a lipstick (Fig. 4a-4d, Col. 5 lines 1-6, wherein the body area can be lips, and the make-up product is lipstick).
Regarding claim 3, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Mauger teaches the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the colour data of the body surface to be virtually made-up is acquired from the incoming image data (Fig. 2, Col. 9 line 63 – Col. 10 line 2, acquiring an image of the body area with a camera; Col. 10 lines 14-18, 27-32, wherein processing the acquired image to determine the body area and acquiring the color parameters of the body area is interpreted as obtaining the color data of the body surface from incoming image data).
Regarding claim 9, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Mauger teaches Method according to claim 1, characterized in that a value of the colour parameter is acquired for different sub-areas of the body surface to be virtually made-up, and in particular for pixel-by-pixel colour processing (Fig. 9 Col. 10, lines 27-32, wherein color parameters of the body area are acquired for each pixel of the body area, which is interpreted as acquiring the color parameters for pixel-by-pixel sub-areas of the body surface).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. Claims 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauger (US 11576478 B2) in view of Tuan (US 9064279 B1), hereinafter Tuan.
Regarding claim 4, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Tuan teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that the colour data of the body surface to be virtually made-up is acquired separately from the incoming image data, in particular by a colour measurement using a colorimeter or spectrophotometer (Fig. 14, Col. 16 lines 34-63, wherein the scanner used to determine skin tone based on how the sample area is illuminated by different wavelengths of light including infrared and ultraviolet light is interpreted as acquiring color data of the body surface by color measurement using a spectrophotometer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mauger with the teachings of Tuan for this method of simulating an application of a make-up product to a body surface. Both Mauger and Tuan discuss methods of determining the skin tone of a user, for the purposes of allowing users to try out make-up. Mauger discusses rendering a simulation of a chosen make-up product applied to a person’s skin tone, while Tuan discusses recommending ideal makeup products and colors to use based on a person’s skin tone. As both references disclose analogous art in determining the skin tone of a user, and Tuan discusses a way to suggest recommended make-up products to a user, it would be obvious to combine these two references to allow for users to both receive make-up recommendations and virtually try them on.
Regarding claim 6, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Tuan teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that the colour parameter value is acquired from a database associating at least one cosmetic make-up product reference with a plurality of reference colours of the considered body area (Fig. 4, Col. 9 lines 13-19, database 407 consisting of a plurality of skin tone colors, which is interpreted as reference colors of a considered body area; Col. 10, lines 6-38, wherein reference skin tone colors are associated with a given database of make-up products, which is interpreted as a database associating make-up product references with a plurality of reference colors, and wherein the color data of an input body area is matched to a reference skin tone, which is interpreted as obtaining the color parameter value from the database).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Mauger in view of Tuan discloses the method of claim 6. Additionally, Tuan teaches the method of claim 6, characterized in that the value of the colour parameter characteristic of the cosmetic product is selected from the database as being that assigned to the reference colour of the considered body area that is closest to the colour of the body area to be virtually made-up acquired from the incoming image data (Col. 10, lines 30-38, wherein the reference skin tone color of the considered body area is determined from a scanner; Col. 10, line 62 – Col. 11 line 3, wherein determining makeup products from a product database based on how much they match a user’s input skin tone is interpreted as selecting the color parameter of the cosmetic product that is closest to the color of the body area).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth for claim 4.
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauger in view of Loriette (US 20220180565 A1), hereinafter Loriette.
Regarding claim 5, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Loriette teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that the incoming image data are an image of the body area made-up with a make-up product having a particular desired finish or texture (Fig. 2, Fig. 6, paragraph 107-111, wherein incoming image data comprises a body area with makeup of a specific texture applied to it; paragraph 53, wherein determining the target makeup product from the input image is interpreted as the input image having a make-up product with a desired finish or texture).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mauger to incorporate the teachings of Loriette for this method of simulating an application of a make-up product to a body surface. Both references discuss determining the color of a body area within an input image in order to determine a specified make-up color. While Mauger discusses determining the skin tone of a body area in order to simulate how a specified make-up product would look on an input body area, Loriette discusses determining the make-up color of a body area in order to determine a make-up product that best matches the make-up displayed in the image. Both references discuss analogous art in determining color from an input image of a user’s body area, and both references discuss providing useful tools for consumers looking at make-up products. Mauger discusses allowing consumers to virtually try out make-up, and Loriette discusses recommending make-up products. Because both references discuss analogous art on analyzing the color of body areas and on improving the make-up consumer experience, it would be obvious to combine them.
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauger in view of Martin (US 20200170383 A1), hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 8, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Martin teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that the value of the colour parameter characteristic of the cosmetic product is acquired by applying a colorimetric rendering model to an intrinsic colour datum of the considered cosmetic product and to a colour datum of the body area to be made-up acquired from the incoming image data (Fig., 1, paragraph 87, 92-93, generating a modified image by determining a set of second color feature values from a set of first color feature values, wherein the first color feature values are defined as the color of the body area without makeup applied, and the second color feature value are defined as the simulated colors of the body area with a given makeup applied; wherein generating the modified image involves changing the color parameters of the pixels of the body area image for each frequency range, which is interpreted as applying a colorimetric rendering model to the color datum of the cosmetic product and the body area to be made-up).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mauger with the teachings of Martin for this method of virtually applying make-up product to a body surface. Both Mauger and Martin teach analogous art of simulating the rendering of a make-up product on an input image of a subject. Both references discuss determining the skin tone color of a body area from an input image, and simulating the color parameters of the body area when a specified make-up product is applied. Martin teaches a different way of simulating the color parameters by extracting the color feature values from the image, and decomposing the body area into individual spatial areas and wavelengths, for the purposes of more accurately simulating the body area with the specified make-up applied. As both references teach analogous, novel methods in virtually simulating a rendering of a body area with a given make-up product applied, it would be obvious to combine them.
13. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauger in view of Fu (US 20190014884 A1), hereinafter Fu.
Regarding claim 10, Mauger discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Fu teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that the rendering engine is able to receive a shine/matteness parameter (Fig. 7-8, paragraph 148-150, wherein to render an image of virtually applied makeup, different textures, including a matte texture, of the makeup can be determined based on tuning parameters, which is interpreted as the rendering engine being able to receive a shine/matteness parameter).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mauger with the teachings of Fu for this method of virtually applying make-up product to a body surface. Both Mauger and Fu teach analogous art of simulating the rendering of a make-up product on an input image of a subject. Both references discuss determining the skin tone color of a body area from an input image, and simulating the color parameters of the body area when a specified make-up product is applied. Additionally, Fu discusses generating make-up textures to apply to the rendered image, in order for consumers to better preview different textures of make-up. As both references discuss analogous art of rendering a simulation of a body area with a given make-up product applied to it, and Fu teaches a novel way to control the texture parameters of the virtually applied make-up product, it would be obvious to combine them.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN W YICK whose telephone number is (571)272-4063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JORDAN WAN YICK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612