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 .
Claim Status
As per Applicant’s response received on 06/11/2026, claims 27-46 are pending; claims 27-28, 32-34, 36, 40, 43, and 46 have been amended.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
As for the objection to the specification, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
As for the 35 USC 112(a) rejection to claim 43, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection to claim 43 has been withdrawn.
As for the 35 USC 112(b) rejections to the claims, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections to the claims have been withdrawn.
As for the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections based on primary reference Station et al. (US 20190053608 A1), the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
In Remarks, pages 9-10, Applicant argues that Station, fails to teach “monitoring movements of the subject during said implementation of the makeup application plan; and obtaining a dynamically updated makeup application plan that accommodates for the movement of the subject during said implementation of the makeup application plan, as recited in amended claim 27.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Station teaches to monitor movements of facial position (Figs. 3, par. [0036], “… the scanning device 130 to obtain the facial-structure information 1010 and the facial-tone information 1020, and to repeatedly obtain the facial-position information 1050 (preferably in real time) …”; par. [0039], “… the facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed …”) during implementation of makeup application plan 1300/2300 include instructions for how to move and actuate the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 (Figs. 6, 7, par. [0038, 0039, 0045], updated facial-position information 1050 is repeatedly obtained during implementation the custom session file 1300/2300 including instructions for controlling the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 to achieve the specific layout of the makeup 20 mapped onto the face 10), and obtaining a dynamically updated makeup application plan that accommodates for the movement of the subject during said implementation of the makeup application plan (Figs. 6, 7, par. [0039], obtaining dynamically updated instructions to adjust the actual operation of the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 based on the updated facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed during implemented the instructions of the custom session file 1300/2300 for controlling carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195). Therefore, the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections based on primary reference Station et al. (US 20190053608 A1) to claim 1 is maintained.
With regard to claims 40 and 46, the Applicant maintains the same arguments; thus the Applicant is referred to the Examiner’s rationale discussed above.
The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections to claims 27-46 based on primary reference Station et al. (US 20190053608 A1) are maintained as discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 40-41.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 27, 29, 30, 38, 40-42, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Staton et al. (US 20190053608 A1, hereinafter “Staton”).
Regarding claims 27 and 46, Staton discloses:
(claim 27) A method (Staton, see at least Figs. 6, 7, 12) comprising:
(claim 46) A computerized apparatus having a processor (Staton, see at least Fig. 3, processor 120), the processor being adapted to perform the steps of:
obtaining a makeup application plan (Staton, custom session file 1300/2300), the makeup application plan comprises instructions for an automatic makeup applicator (Staton, see at least Figs. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, par. [0039, 0045], carriage actuators 160, valves 175, 195, airbrush 371, blotter 376a, brush 376b, washing device 376c, gas applicator 376d, tattoo gun 376e), the instructions, when implemented by the automatic makeup applicator (Staton, see at least Figs. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, par. [0039, 0045], carriage actuators 160, valves 175, 195, airbrush 371, blotter 376a, brush 376b, washing device 376c, gas applicator 376d, tattoo gun 376e), are configured to apply makeup materials (Staton, see at least Figs. 8, 10, par. [0041], different makeup 20 (e.g., a first contour makeup may be in the reservoir 280a, a second contour makeup may be in the reservoir 280b, a first highlighting makeup may be in the reservoir 280c, and a second highlighting makeup may be in the reservoir 280d)) on a subject (Staton, see at least Fig. 8, face 10) in order to achieve a desired look for the subject (Staton, see at least Fig. 8, par. [0039], desired make 20 based on skin-tone information 1020, user preference file 1030, and makeup color information 1210 that is mapped on face 10; Figs. 7, 8, steps S140, S141, S142, S143, S144, par. [0037, 0039, 0045], “… at step S144, the processor creates an instruction file for controlling the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 to achieve the specific layout of the makeup 20 mapped onto the face 10 in step S143 …”);
implementing by the automatic makeup applicator a portion of the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 6, 8, par. [0038-0039], steps S150 to S180 are repeated until the custom session file 130 is fully executed to achieve the specific layout of the makeup mapped onto the face);
obtaining sensor readings from a sensor (Staton, see at least Figs. 2, 3, par. [0029], scanner 130 includes three-dimensional sensors 132) during said implementation of the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 2, 3, par. [0029, 0036, 0038, 0039], step S150 is repeatedly executed until the custom session file 1300 has been fully executed for the particular makeup 20), wherein the sensor (Staton, see at least scanner 130 includes three-dimensional sensors 132) is configured to monitor movements of the subject during said implementation of the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 2, 3, par. [0029, 0036, 0038, 0039], monitoring the facial-position information 1050 that indicates where the face 10 is located in real time and whether the facial position has changed. Step S150 is repeatedly executed until the custom session file 1300 has been fully executed for the particular makeup 20);
in response to identifying, based on the sensor readings, a movement of the subject during said implementation of the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 2, 3, par. [0029, 0036, 0038, 0039], “… as the facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed …”), updating the makeup application plan, whereby obtaining a dynamically updated makeup application plan that accommodates for the movement of the subject during said implementation of the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 6, 7, par. [0039], obtaining dynamically updated instructions to adjust the actual operation of the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 based on the updated facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed during implemented the instructions of the custom session file 1300/2300 for controlling carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195); and
implementing the dynamically updated makeup application plan or portion thereof in order to achieve the desired look for the subject while taking into account the movement of the subject and an implementation of the portion of the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Fig. 6, step S150-S170, par. [0038, 0039], “After step S140, the processor 120 at step S150 obtains updated facial-position information 1050 via the scanner 130 and stores the updated facial-position information 1050 in the computer memory 110. And at steps S160 and S170, the processor 120 causes the carriage actuators 160 to move the carriage 150 in accordance with the custom session file 1300 and the facial-position information 1050, and causes the valves 175, 195 to selectively allow the makeup 20 to flow through the supply passage 174 and the output nozzle 172 to apply the makeup 20 to the face 10. After steps S160 and S170, the processor 120 determines at S180 if the custom session file 1300 has been fully executed for the particular makeup 20. If not, the process returns to step S150; if so, the process S10 ends at step S190 … the facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed, the processor 120 may adjust the actual operation of the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 accordingly in steps S160, S170 …”).
Regarding claim 29, Staton teaches all the limitations of claims 27 and 46 as discussed above. Staton further teaches wherein the instructions comprise movement instructions that yield a 3D trajectory to be followed by the automatic makeup applicator in order to achieve the desired look (Staton, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0032-0033], the automatic makeup applicator is able to move in x, y, and z directions and comprises a rotating member 167, which may rotate in multiple dimensions; Figs. 7, 8, par. [0029], instruction file for controlling the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 to achieve the specific layout of the makeup 20 mapped onto the face 10 based on three-dimensional information of the face 10. Examiner note: 3D trajectory is defined as trajectory in 3D space to achieve the chosen makeup look as described in par. [0047] of the instant specification); and wherein the instructions comprise material application instructions, each of which indicating an application location (Staton, see at least Figs. 6-8, par. [0039], “… mapping is illustrated in FIG. 8, showing contour makeup 20a and highlighting makeup 20c mapped to the face 10 …”), a material to be applied and application properties (Staton, see at least par. [0036], “cosmetic database 1200 includes makeup composition information 1210 (e.g., makeup identification information, makeup color information, et cetera) and baseline makeup application information 1220 (e.g., baseline routines for applying makeup to different face shapes; to different contours of the eyes, nose, cheeks, jaw, chin, and skin; to different skin tones; to obtain different makeup styles; et cetera)”) to be implemented by the automatic makeup applicator (Staton, see at least Figs. 6-8, par. [0039], “… at step S144, the processor creates an instruction file for controlling the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 to achieve the specific layout of the makeup 20 mapped onto the face 10 in step S143 …”).
Regarding claim 30, Staton teaches all the limitations of claims 27 and 46 as discussed above. Staton further teaches wherein said obtaining the makeup application plan comprises:
obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) surface of a face of the subject (Staton, see at least Figs. 3, 6-8, par. [0029], “The scanner 130 uses three-dimensional sensors 132 to capture information about the face 10, including facial-structure information 1010 (which may include, for example, information regarding face shape and contour of the eyes, nose, cheeks, jaw, chin, and skin) and facial-position information 1050 (information regarding where the face 10 is located, preferably in real time)”);
obtaining the desired look, wherein the desired look is determined based on a user input indicating a required result of makeup application on the face of the subject (Staton, see at least Figs. 3, 6, par. [0030, 0037], “At step S100 at method S10, the processor 120 obtains user preference information 1030 via the input 140 and stores the user preference information 1030 in the computer memory 110”; par. [0039], “… In some embodiments, a virtual reality output (e.g., through a projector output 145 projecting an image of the mapped makeup 20 on the user's face 10, or through a display screen output 145 showing an image of the user's face 10 with the mapped makeup 20) may be used to allow the user to verify (through the input 140) the proposed makeup application …”); and
generating the makeup application plan based on the user input and based on the 3D surface of the face (Staton, see at least Figs. 6, 7, step S140, par. [0037], “… At step S140, the processor 120 creates custom session file 1300 based on data from the facial-structure information 1010, the facial-tone information 1020, the user preference file 1030, and the baseline makeup application information 1220 …”).
Regarding claim 38, Staton teaches all the limitations of claims 27 and 46 as discussed above. Staton further teaches wherein the automatic makeup applicator comprises an airbrush that is movable at 5 degrees of freedom, the airbrush is capable of translation movement in 3 axes and rotational movement in 2 axes (Staton, see at least Figs. 2, 4, par. [0033], “As shown in FIGS. 2 and 4, the carriage actuators 160 may include a drive mechanism 161 and rail 162 system which allows lateral travel, a drive mechanism 163 and rail 164 system which allows transverse (in the depicted orientation, vertical) travel, and a drive mechanism 165 and rail 166 system which allows further transverse (in the depicted orientation, front/back) travel … The carriage actuators 160 may further include a rotating member 167, which may rotate … in multiple dimensions (such as through a ball-and-socket joint)”; par. [0034], “The cosmetic unit 170 is coupled to and movable with the carriage 150, as shown in FIG. 2. As shown in FIG. 5, the cosmetic unit 170 may include a cosmetic airbrush 171”).
Regarding claim 40, Staton discloses a machine (Staton, see at least Fig. 2) comprising:
a robotic arm movable in 5 degrees of freedom, the 5 degrees of freedom comprise translation movement in 3 axes and rotational movement in 2 axes (Staton, see at least Figs. 2, 4, par. [0033], “As shown in FIGS. 2 and 4, the carriage actuators 160 may include a drive mechanism 161 and rail 162 system which allows lateral travel, a drive mechanism 163 and rail 164 system which allows transverse (in the depicted orientation, vertical) travel, and a drive mechanism 165 and rail 166 system which allows further transverse (in the depicted orientation, front/back) travel … The carriage actuators 160 may further include a rotating member 167, which may rotate … in multiple dimensions (such as through a ball-and-socket joint) … the carriage actuators 160 may include a robotic arm”);
an airbrush mounted on said robotic arm (Staton, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0034], “The cosmetic unit 170 is coupled to and movable with the carriage 150, as shown in FIG. 2. As shown in FIG. 5, the cosmetic unit 170 may include a cosmetic airbrush 171”);
a sensor for monitoring movement of a subject (Staton, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0029], “The scanner 130 uses three-dimensional sensors 132 to capture information about the face 10, including facial-structure information 1010 (which may include, for example, information regarding face shape and contour of the eyes, nose, cheeks, jaw, chin, and skin) and facial-position information 1050 (information regarding where the face 10 is located, preferably in real time)”); and
a control unit (Staton, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0028], processor 120) for controlling movement of said robotic arm in accordance with a makeup application plan, said control unit is further configured to control application of said airbrush in accordance with the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 3, 6, 10, par. [0034-0036, 0039], the processor creates an instruction file for controlling the carriage actuators 160 include a robotic arm and the valves 175, 195 of airbrush 171 to achieve the specific layout of the makeup 20 mapped onto the face 10), wherein said control unit is configured to modify the makeup application plan during implementation of the makeup application plan based on sensor readings from said sensor taken during implementation of the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 3, 6, 7, par. [0039], “…at step S144, the processor creates an instruction file for controlling the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 to achieve the specific layout of the makeup 20 mapped onto the face 10 in step S143. The instruction file created in step S144 may be keyed to a particular facial position. Thus, as the facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed, the processor 120 may adjust the actual operation of the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 accordingly in steps S160, S170 …”).
Regarding claim 41, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above. Staton further teaches a an air compressor, said air compressor is configured to cause application of material via said airbrush (Staton, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0035], “A pressurized-air source 190, such as an air tank housing compressed air or a compressor for compressing air, is in communication with the cosmetic airbrush 171 (e.g., through tubing 194)”), wherein said control unit is configured to instruct said air compressor (Staton, see at least Figs. 5, 10, par. [0035], “And another valve 195 in data communication with the processor 120 controls passage of the pressurized air. The makeup 20 is dispensed from the output nozzle 172 when both the pressurized air and the makeup 20 are supplied through the valves 175, 195”) to provide different air pressure levels in accordance with the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Figs. 5, 10, par. [0044], “And at step S270, to apply makeup 20 to the face 10, the processor 220 causes the valves 275a, 295a to selectively allow makeup 20a to flow through the supply passage 274a and the output nozzle 272a, the valves 275b, 295b to selectively allow makeup 20b to flow through the supply passage 274b and the output nozzle 272b, the valves 275c, 295c to selectively allow makeup 20c to flow through the supply passage 274c and the output nozzle 272c, the valves 275d, 295d to selectively allow makeup 20d to flow through the supply passage 274d and the output nozzle 272d, and the valves 275e, 295e to selectively allow makeup 20e to flow through the supply passage 274e and the output nozzle 272e, all in accordance with the custom session file 2300 and the facial-position information 2050. For a period of time, the processor 220 may cause makeup 20 to be sprayed through multiple nozzles 272 simultaneously”; par. [0041], “… While FIG. 10 shows a single pressurized-air source 290 connected through tubing 294a, 294b, 294c, 294d, 294e, multiple pressurized-air sources 290 may instead be used …”).
Regarding claim 42, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above. Staton further teaches a material mixer for providing a material to be applied by said airbrush (Staton, see at least Figs. 2, 11, par. [0041], mixing reservoir 281 for providing a material to be applied by said airbrush 270), wherein the makeup application plan defines different materials to be mixed for applying makeup on the subject (Staton, see at least par. [0043], “First, the makeup applicator 200 may create custom makeup 20 by mixing together different makeup 20 in the mixing reservoir 281”; par. [0044], “At step S241, the processor 220 causes the valves 285a, 285b to pass makeup 20a, 20b from the cosmetic reservoirs 280a, 280b to the mixing reservoir 281 to create makeup 20e, based on the custom session file 2300 created at step S240 and data from the sensors 286a, 286b”).
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.
Claims 28, 31-33, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staton et al. (US 20190053608 A1, hereinafter “Staton”) as applied to claims 27, 30 and 40 above, and further in view of Whitelaw (US 20200285835 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above. Staton fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions for the automatic makeup applicator comprise an instruction to apply the makeup materials from a predefined location in space that is distant from a surface of a face of the subject by a defined distance; and wherein said updating the makeup application plan comprises modifying the instruction based on the movement of the subject so as to maintain the defined distance.
Whitelaw, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions of the makeup application plan comprise an instruction to apply the makeup materials from a correct distance that is distant from the user’s face as the automatic makeup applicator moves and updating the makeup application plan based on tracking the location of the automatic makeup applicator in relation to the user’s face in order to maintain the correct distance away from the user’s face (Whitelaw, see at least Figs. 7A-B, par. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include the instructions of the makeup application plan comprise an instruction to apply the makeup materials from a correct distance that is distant from the user’s face as the automatic makeup applicator moves and updating the makeup application plan based on tracking the location of the automatic makeup applicator in relation to the user’s face in order to maintain the correct distance away from the user’s face accordingly, in view of Whitelaw. This modification allows to keep an appropriate distance from the user's face as the automatic makeup applicator moves and imitate a pre-programmed human hand fashion (Whitelaw, see at least par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 31, Staton teaches all the limitations of claims 27 and 30 as discussed above. Staton further teaches wherein said generating comprises:
determining, for a target area in the 3D surface of the face (Staton, see at least Fig. 8, par. [0039], “… contour makeup 20a and highlighting makeup 20c mapped to the face 10 …”), a material to be applied, an application property of an application of the material (Staton, see at least Fig. 8, par. [0039], “…At step S141, the processor 120 accesses the skin-tone information 1020, the user preference file 1030, and the makeup color information 1210, and look-up tables or logic causes the processor 120 to either confirm that the available shade of contour (makeup 20) is appropriate or suggest an available shade based on the warm skin tone, the desired palette, and the makeup properties …”), and an application (Staton, see at least Fig. 7, par. [0033, 0038-0039], “The instruction file created in step S144 may be keyed to a particular facial position. Thus, as the facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed, the processor 120 may adjust the actual operation of the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 accordingly in steps S160, S170“); and
generating one or more instructions that are configured to cause the automatic makeup applicator to apply the material from the application (Staton, see at least Figs. 6, 7, par. [0033, 0038-0039], “… at steps S160 and S170, the processor 120 causes the carriage actuators 160 to move the carriage 150 in accordance with the custom session file 1300 and the facial-position information 1050, and causes the valves 175, 195 to selectively allow the makeup 20 to flow through the supply passage 174 and the output nozzle 172 to apply the makeup 20 to the face 10 … at step S144, the processor creates an instruction file for controlling the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 to achieve the specific layout of the makeup 20 mapped onto the face 10 in step S143. The instruction file created in step S144 may be keyed to a particular facial position. Thus, as the facial-position information 1050 indicates that the facial position has changed, the processor 120 may adjust the actual operation of the carriage actuators 160 and the valves 175, 195 accordingly in steps S160, S170”), wherein the application property comprises application pressure to be used when applying the material on the target area (Staton, see at least Figs. 5, 7, par. [0034-0036], “… using the custom session file 1300 and the then-current facial position information 1050, the processor 120 … causes the valves 175, 195 to selectively allow the makeup 20 to flow through the supply passage 174 and the output nozzle 172 to apply the makeup 20 to the face 10 …”).
Staton fails to explicitly teach an application distance from which the material is to be applied on the target area.
Whitelaw, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to track the location of the automatic makeup applicator in relation to the user's face based on live tracking of the user's face, wherein the automatic makeup applicator is pre-programmed to keep an appropriate distance from the user's face as it moves (Whitelaw, at Figs. 7A-7B, par. [0030], claim 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include an application distance from which the material is to be applied on the target area, in view of Whitelaw. This modification allows to keep an appropriate distance from the user's face as the automatic makeup applicator moves and imitate a pre-programmed human hand fashion (Whitelaw, see at least par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Staton and Whitelaw teaches all the limitations of claims 27, and 30-31 as discussed above. The combination of Staton and Whitelaw further teaches wherein said generating is performed with respect to a first target area and a second target area, wherein an application distance at the first target area is different than an application distance at the second target area (Whitelaw, see at least Figs. 7A-B, par. [0030], “In step 736, the camera 56 begins live tracking the user's face. In more detail, microcontroller 34 signals camera 56 to begin live tracking of the user's face and signals the robotic arm 40 to move to its initial position in front of the user's face. In step 738, the airbrush begins spraying the user's face. Specifically, microcontroller 34 signals plug triggers 70 to release the first airbrush nozzle 54 and begin spraying the user's face with formula. The system continues to track the location of robotic arm 40 in relation to the user's face, keeping the correct distance away from the face as robotic arm 40 moves, mimicking a pre-programmed human hand fashion”).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Staton and Whitelaw teaches all the limitations of claims 27, and 30-31 as discussed above. The combination of Staton and Whitelaw further teaches wherein said generating is performed with respect to a first target area and a second target area (Staton, see at least Figs. 7, 8, par. [0039], “At step S142, the processor 120 accesses the facial-structure information 1010 and the baseline makeup application information 1220, and look-up tables or logic causes the processor 120 to determine that the contour (makeup 20) should be applied to certain facial areas based on the oval face shape and the contour of the eyes, nose, cheeks, jaw, chin, and skin. At step S143, the processor maps the facial areas determined in step S142 onto the specific facial structure of the face 10; an example mapping is illustrated in FIG. 8, showing contour makeup 20a and highlighting makeup 20c mapped to the face 10”), wherein the application property is the application pressure to be used by the automatic makeup applicator (Staton, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0035], “A pressurized-air source 190, such as an air tank housing compressed air or a compressor for compressing air, is in communication with the cosmetic airbrush 171 (e.g., through tubing 194)”), wherein the application distance at the first target area is equal to the application distance at the second target area (Whitelaw, see at least Figs. 7A-B, par. [0030], “In step 736, the camera 56 begins live tracking the user's face. In more detail, microcontroller 34 signals camera 56 to begin live tracking of the user's face and signals the robotic arm 40 to move to its initial position in front of the user's face. In step 738, the airbrush begins spraying the user's face. Specifically, microcontroller 34 signals plug triggers 70 to release the first airbrush nozzle 54 and begin spraying the user's face with formula. The system continues to track the location of robotic arm 40 in relation to the user's face, keeping the correct distance away from the face as robotic arm 40 moves, mimicking a pre-programmed human hand fashion”), wherein a pressure to be used by the automatic makeup applicator at the first target area is different than a pressure at the second target area (Staton, see at least Figs. 7, 8, par. [0038, 0039], “… at steps S160 and S170, the processor 120 causes the carriage actuators 160 to move the carriage 150 in accordance with the custom session file 1300 and the facial-position information 1050, and causes the valves 175, 195 to selectively allow the makeup 20 to flow through the supply passage 174 and the output nozzle 172 to apply the makeup 20 to the face 10 …”).
Regarding claim 45, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above. Staton further teaches a scanner 130 uses three-dimensional sensors 132 to monitor facial-position information 1050 regarding where face 10 is located, preferably in real time (Staton, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0029]).
Staton fails to explicitly teach a proximity sensor monitoring a distance of said airbrush from physical objects.
Whitelaw, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a proximity sensor 58 located inside a head 50 monitoring a distance of a plurality of nozzles 54 of an airbrush from physical objects (Whitelaw, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0025, 0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include an application distance from which the material is to be applied on the target area, in view of Whitelaw. This modification allows to keep an appropriate distance from the user's face as the automatic makeup applicator moves and imitate a pre-programmed human hand fashion (Whitelaw, see at least par. [0030]).
Claims 34-36, 39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staton et al. (US 20190053608 A1, hereinafter “Staton”) as applied to claims 27, 30, 38, and 40 above, and further in view of Wong (US 20120067364 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 30 as discussed above. Staton fails to explicitly teach wherein said generating is performed based on safety considerations, wherein the safety considerations include response time of the automatic makeup applicator to a movement of the subject, whereby ensuring time to avoid injury of the subject.
Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein said generating is performed based on safety considerations, wherein the safety considerations include response time of the automatic makeup applicator to a movement of the subject, whereby ensuring sufficient time to avoid injury of the subject (Wong, see at least par. [0053, 0055, 0060], “For example, in real-time shooting and monitoring, when the eyes of a user are open for a predetermined period of time, the image capturing module 7 can send an abnormal signal A via the control device to interrupt the operation of the cosmetics provider 3 so as to exclude the jetted cosmetic material 31 from touching the eyes or unwanted parts of the face of the user”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include wherein said generating is performed based on safety considerations, wherein the safety considerations include response time of the automatic makeup applicator to a movement of the subject, whereby ensuring sufficient time to avoid injury of the subject, in view of Wong. This modification allows to generate the makeup application plan based on safety considerations (Wong, see at least par. [0055]).
Regarding claim 35, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above. Staton fails to explicitly teach wherein said updating is performed to avoid injury of the subject.
Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to interrupt the operation to apply the makeup application plan when a security sensor detects an abnormality due to a movement of user’s face is out of safety range of the automatic makeup applicator (Wong, see at least par. [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include interrupt the operation to apply the makeup application plan when a security sensor detects an abnormality due to a movement of user’s face is out of safety range of the automatic makeup applicator, in view of Wong. This modification allows to generate the makeup application plan based on safety considerations (Wong, see at least par. [0055]).
Regarding claim 36, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above. Staton further teaches simulating an outcome of the makeup application plan, wherein said simulating comprises simulating implementation of the instructions of the makeup application plan on a 3D model of the subject, whereby obtaining a simulated outcome depicting the subject wearing makeup in accordance with the makeup application plan (Staton, see at least Fig. 8, par. [0039], “a virtual reality output (e.g., through a projector output 145 projecting an image of the mapped makeup 20 on the user's face 10, or through a display screen output 145 showing an image of the user's face 10 with the mapped makeup 20) may be used to allow the user to verify (through the input 140) the proposed makeup application”), wherein said simulating the implementation of the instructions include simulating a first application of makeup on a target area of the subject and simulating a second application of makeup on the target area (Staton, see at least Fig. 8, par. [0039], contour makeup 20a and highlighting makeup 20c mapped to the face 10); and displaying the simulated outcome (Staton, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0031, 0039], a projector output 145 projecting an image of the mapped makeup 20 on the user's face 10).
Staton fails to explicitly teach wherein said simulating comprises generating an intermediate simulated outcome depicting the subject wearing makeup in accordance with a partial application of the makeup application plan; and wherein said method comprises displaying the intermediate simulated outcome.
Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to generate an intermediate simulated outcome, e.g. makeup-application profile C indicates an edited makeup image and the make-up application position T indicates a facial zone to be applied with makeup as described in Fig. 10, and display the intermediate simulated outcome to the user via a display (Wong, see at least par. [0051, 0054-0056, 0061-0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include to generate an intermediate simulated outcome and display the intermediate simulated outcome to the user via a display, in view of Wong. This modification allows the user to edit and preview makeup material on a makeup-application profile, e.g. eye shadow color or the texture of the applied cosmetics, to decide if it is appropriate or meets with the requirement.
Regarding claim 39, Staton teaches all the limitations of claims 27 and 38 as discussed above. Staton further teaches wherein the airbrush having multiple nozzles (Staton, see at least Fig. 10, par. [0043], the makeup applicator 200 has multiple output nozzles 272), wherein the makeup application plan defines a first application trajectory for a first nozzle and a second application trajectory for a second nozzle (Staton, see at least Figs. 10, 12, par. [0038, 0043], “And at steps S160 and S170, the processor 120 causes the carriage actuators 160 to move the carriage 150 in accordance with the custom session file 1300 and the facial-position information 1050, and causes the valves 175, 195 to selectively allow the makeup 20 to flow through the supply passage 174 and the output nozzle 172 to apply the makeup 20 to the face 10”), and wherein the makeup application plan defines a relative order of application between the first nozzle and the second nozzle (Staton, see at least par. [0044], “And at step S270, to apply makeup 20 to the face 10, the processor 220 causes the valves 275a, 295a to selectively allow makeup 20a to flow through the supply passage 274a and the output nozzle 272a, the valves 275b, 295b to selectively allow makeup 20b to flow through the supply passage 274b and the output nozzle 272b, the valves 275c, 295c to selectively allow makeup 20c to flow through the supply passage 274c and the output nozzle 272c, the valves 275d, 295d to selectively allow makeup 20d to flow through the supply passage 274d and the output nozzle 272d, and the valves 275e, 295e to selectively allow makeup 20e to flow through the supply passage 274e and the output nozzle 272e, all in accordance with the custom session file 2300 and the facial-position information 2050. For a period of time, the processor 220 may cause makeup 20 to be sprayed through multiple nozzles 272 simultaneously”).
Staton fails to explicitly teach the airbrush’s nozzles having variable sizes and shapes.
Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the airbrush having multiple nozzles, e.g. a piezoelectric nozzle 32, a jet nozzle 35, and a pressure nozzle 36 in the rotor 33, having different size and shapes (Wong, see at least Figs. 3-4, 6-7, par. [0016, 0049-0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include the airbrush’s nozzles having variable sizes and shapes, in view of Wong. This modification allows such a way automatically provides cosmetic tools for conveniently applying various color materials or pigments (Wong, par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 43, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above. Staton fails to explicitly teach wherein said airbrush is attachable to multiple alternative nozzles having different sizes and shapes, thereby enabling different application patterns by said airbrush.
Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the airbrush 33 is attachable to multiple alternative nozzles, e.g. a piezoelectric nozzle 32, a jet nozzle 35, and a pressure nozzle 36, having different sizes and shapes (Wong, see at least Figs. 3-4, 6-7, par. [0016, 0049-0050]), thereby enabling different application patterns by said airbrush (Wong, see at least Figs. 3, 6, 7, par. [0016, 0049-0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include airbrush is attachable to multiple alternative nozzles having different sizes and shapes, thereby enabling different application patterns by said airbrush, in view of Wong. This modification allows such a way automatically provides cosmetic tools for conveniently applying various color materials or pigments (Wong, par. [0049]).
Claims 37 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staton et al. (US 20190053608 A1, hereinafter “Staton”) as applied to claims 27 and 40 above, and further in view of Gilron et al. (US 20220322812 A1, hereinafter “Gilron”).
Regarding claim 37, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above. Staton fails to explicitly teach wherein the makeup application plan comprises an instruction to generate a four-dimensional (4D) stencil configured to be attached to the subject; wherein the method further comprises fabricating the 4D stencil; wherein said implementing is performed while the 4D stencil is attached to the subject, wherein the 4D stencil is fabricated based on a three- dimensional (3D) model of the subject.
Gilron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the makeup application plan comprises an instruction to generate a four-dimensional (4D) stencil configured to be attached to the subject (Gilron, see at least Figs. 4, 5, 6, 10, par. [0085, 0108-0112, 0114], instruction to automatically adjust a make-up assistance device/stencil 20 along X axis, Y axis (see Figs. 4, 5, par. [0109]) and a rotation thereto in the XY plane (see Figs. 7-8, par. [0111, 0112]) using a motor 26 controlled by a control system 27; the make-up assistance device 20 is configured to be attached to face of a user as described in Fig. 10); wherein the method further comprises fabricating the 4D stencil (Gilron, see at least Figs. 4, 5, 6, 10, par. [0085, 0108-0112, 0114], instruction to automatically adjust a make-up assistance device/stencil 20 along X axis, Y axis (see Figs. 4, 5, par. [0109]) and a rotation thereto in the XY plane (see Figs. 7-8, par. [0111, 0112]) using a motor 26 controlled by a control system 27; the make-up assistance device 20 is configured to be attached to face of a user as described in Fig. 10); wherein said implementing is performed while the 4D stencil is attached to the subject (Gilron, see at least par. [0077-0078], “engaging the support against a corresponding bearing zone of the face; applying a cosmetic composition using the application component of the device”; par. [0082, 0084], “In another embodiment, the application components are loaded by pivoting them by 180° about adjustable connections in order to spread the cosmetic composition therein. Then, they are reoriented in the correct direction for use, i.e. opposite the zone to be made-up … In a particular embodiment of the invention, the system automatically controls the discharge of the cosmetic compositions, together or individually. Thus, an individual can select one color or another as desired”), wherein the 4D stencil is fabricated based on a three- dimensional (3D) model of the subject (Gilron, see at least par. [0050, 0052-0053], “acquiring topographical data of at least the zone of the face that will be used as a bearing zone for the support when the device is used … The topographical data is acquired digitally, for example, in particular using a 3D digitization tool or by molding the zone”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include wherein the makeup application plan comprises an instruction to generate a four-dimensional (4D) stencil configured to be attached to the subject; wherein the method further comprises fabricating the 4D stencil; wherein said implementing is performed while the 4D stencil is attached to the subject, wherein the 4D stencil is fabricated based on a three- dimensional (3D) model of the subject, in view of Gilron. This modification allows a cosmetic composition to be applied easily and with a low risk of error (Gilron, par. [0013]).
Regarding claim 44, Staton teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above. Staton fails to explicitly teach wherein said machine is coupled to a stencil fabricator for fabricating a four-dimensional (4D) stencil that is configured to be attached to the subject while applying makeup in accordance with the makeup application plan.
Gilron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein said machine is coupled to a stencil fabricator for fabricating a four-dimensional (4D) stencil (Gilron, see at least par. [0039, 0045, 0076, 0081, 0085], the application component/material applicator, e.g. spray, is configured to be coupled to the make-up assistance device 20/stencil; Fig. 10, the make-up assistance device 20 is configured to be attached to face of a user; Figs. 4, 5, 6, 10, par. [0085, 0108-0112, 0114], instruction to automatically adjust a make-up assistance device/stencil 20 along X axis, Y axis (see Figs. 4, 5, par. [0109]) and a rotation thereto in the XY plane (see Figs. 7-8, par. [0111, 0112]) using a motor 26 controlled by a control system 27) that is configured to be attached to the subject while applying makeup in accordance with the makeup application plan (Gilron, par. [0077-0078], “engaging the support against a corresponding bearing zone of the face; applying a cosmetic composition using the application component of the device”; par. [0082, 0084], “In another embodiment, the application components are loaded by pivoting them by 180° about adjustable connections in order to spread the cosmetic composition therein. Then, they are reoriented in the correct direction for use, i.e. opposite the zone to be made-up … In a particular embodiment of the invention, the system automatically controls the discharge of the cosmetic compositions, together or individually. Thus, an individual can select one color or another as desired”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Staton’s teachings to further include wherein said machine is coupled to a stencil fabricator for fabricating a four-dimensional (4D) stencil that is configured to be attached to the subject while applying makeup in accordance with the makeup application plan, in view of Gilron. This modification allows a cosmetic composition to be applied easily and with a low risk of error (Gilron, par. [0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (KR20210071122A) teaches a method and a system for mist spraying using face recognition.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights