DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to the application filed May 1, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Objections
Claim 5-7, 9, 10, and 15-20 recites the limitation "the webpage components". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a process and claim 11 is directed to an article of machine. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
executing a virtual try on (VTO) engine to batch process at least one before model image in accordance with a plurality of effects to be applied;
pre-rendering after model images showing the effects applied to the at least one before model image to simulate instances of a product or service;
providing the after model images.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, judgments, and evaluations. The BRI of these limitations includes processing before model images, pre-rendering after model images, and providing the after model images.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
Accordingly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The recitation of the additional elements of a computing device, and the VTO engine in claims 1 and 11 is acknowledged.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing images) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite training machine learning models, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the machine learning is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 11 are “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Additionally, when considering whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, it is considered whether the extra-solution limitation is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 11 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 11 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims 1 and 11 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely serve to embellish the abstract idea and do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sartori et al (US 2018/0075524 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Sartori discloses a method comprising:
executing, by a computing device, a virtual try on (VTO) engine to batch process at least one before model image in accordance with a plurality of effects to be applied (Sartori: Figure 9B);
the VTO engine pre-rendering after model images showing the effects applied to the at least one before model image to simulate instances of a product or service (Sartori: Figure 4 - process base image 412);
providing, by the computing device, the after model images (Sartori: Figure 4 - display composite image including base image with makeup image 414).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sartori discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 11. Sartori further discloses wherein the product or service comprises one of a hair product or service, a nail product or service, or a makeup product or service (Sartori: abstract - Techniques are described for applying virtual makeup products).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Sartori discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 11. Sartori further discloses providing, by the computing device, a portal interface to make the VTO engine available for batch processing. the portal interface configured to receive the at least one before model image and identification information for the plurality of effects to be applied (Figure 9B, Figure 6, paragraph [0016] - FIG. 6 shows a screen capture of an example graphical interface through which a user may adjust region boundaries to aid in the facial feature detection process described with respect to FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Sartori discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Sartori further discloses wherein providing the webpage components comprises providing the webpage components via a content distribution network responsive to a target market associated with the webpage components (Figure 1 - Network 110).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 4-7, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartori et al (US 2018/0075524 A1) in view of Singh et al (US 2022/0230401A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Sartori discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 3 and 13. Sartori does not expressly disclose generating website components defining an advertisement for integration into a webpage to provide a VTO experience using at least some of the after model images and providing the website components for execution. Singh discloses generating website components defining an advertisement for integration into a webpage to provide a VTO experience using at least some of the after model images and providing the website components for execution (Singh: paragraph [0035] - The systems and methods disclosed herein can be used to provide personalized advertisements to users. For example, the preferences for a user may be stored. The stored preferences can tailor the provided product advertisements to render the advertised product on the user's preferred template image, paragraph [0024], paragraph [0026] - virtually "try-on" the product in different template scenarios).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and apparatus of Hess to have included generating website components defining an advertisement for integration into a webpage to provide a VTO experience using at least some of the after model images and providing the website components for execution, as taught by Singh because it would allow for tailoring to user preferences (Singh: paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Sartori and Singh teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 4 and 14 as noted above. Sartori further discloses wherein the webpage components define a collection of interfaces to present a model image experience to virtually try on instances of the product or the service (Sartori: paragraph [0019] -FIGS. 8A-8I show screen captures of example composite images that illustrate how virtual makeup application can differ based on effect configurations).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Sartori and Singh teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 5 and 15 as noted above. Sartori further discloses wherein the webpage components comprise after model images for a plurality of models and wherein the collection of interfaces includes a model selection interface to select between the after model images (Sartori: paragraph [0019] -FIGS. 8A-8I show screen captures of example composite images that illustrate how virtual makeup application can differ based on effect configurations).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Sartori and Singh teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 5 and 14 as noted above. Sartori further discloses wherein the webpage components further comprise a user VTO engine that corresponds to the VTO engine used to render the at least some of the after model images, the user VTO engine configured to render a user after image for presenting to virtually try on the instances of the product or service on a before image of the user to provide a user image experience (Sartori: paragraph [0020] - FIGS. 9A-9L show a series of screen captures of an example graphical user interface for virtual makeup application).
Regarding claim 15, Sartori and Singh teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Sartori further discloses wherein the webpage components present the VTO experience as a component of an e-commerce service for purchasing products or services associated with the VTO experience (Sartori: paragraph [0098] - . As previously mentioned, a virtual makeup platform 120 may operate as, part of, or in communication with an e-commerce platform through which a user can order the real world makeup products associated with the virtual products they try on via the app).
Regarding claim 20, Sartori and Singh teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Sartori further discloses wherein the webpage components are generated to include corresponding product or service effects corresponding the effects applied to the at least some after model images, the corresponding product or service effects for use by the user VTO engine to render the user after images (Sartori: paragraph [0020] - FIGS. 9A-9L show a series of screen captures of an example graphical user interface for virtual makeup application).
Claims 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartori et al (US 2018/0075524 A1) in view of Singh et al (US 2022/0230401A1), and further in view of Lee et al.
Regarding claim 8, Sartori and Singh teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Sartori further discloses wherein the collection of interfaces are generated to: c. present the model user experience in a region of the webpage that overlaps with the presenting of the user after image comprising the user image experience (Sartori: Figure 9A-L - show a series of screen captures of an example graphical user interface for virtual makeup application). The combination of Sartori and Singh does not disclose a. comprise a landing page to initiate the model image experience, the landing page having a control to initiate the user image experience provided by the VTO engine: b. comprise a loading page to continue to present the model image experience while the user image experience is readied by the computing device; and wherein the webpage components are generated to cause the user computing device to load components of the user image experience in a background while the model image experience is continued to be provided in a foreground. However, Lee teaches
a. comprise a landing page to initiate the model image experience, the landing page having a control to initiate the user image experience provided by the VTO engine: (Lee: abstract - landing page);
b. comprise a loading page to continue to present the model image experience while the user image experience is readied by the computing device (Lee: Figure 7, paragraph [0119] - To create a cleaner user experience, client devices 350 may load not only the visible items, but also include items that will initially fall outside display area 704. In such embodiments, client devices 350 may additionally load a fifth item 714, a sixth item 716, and a seventh item 718); and
wherein the webpage components are generated to cause the user computing device to load components of the user image experience in a background while the model image experience is continued to be provided in a foreground (Lee: Figure 7, paragraph [0119] - To create a cleaner user experience, client devices 350 may load not only the visible items, but also include items that will initially fall outside display area 704. In such embodiments, client devices 350 may additionally load a fifth item 714, a sixth item 716, and a seventh item 718).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Sartori and Singh, in the apparatus and method for a. comprise a landing page to initiate the model image experience, the landing page having a control to initiate the user image experience provided by the VTO engine: b. comprise a loading page to continue to present the model image experience while the user image experience is readied by the computing device; and wherein the webpage components are generated to cause the user computing device to load components of the user image experience in a background while the model image experience is continued to be provided in a foreground, as taught by Lee since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would provide for fast loading of websites (Lee: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Sartori and Singh teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 7 and 18 as noted above. The combination of Sartori and Singh does not disclose wherein the webpage components are generated to cause the user computing device to load components of the user image experience in a background while the model image experience is continued to be provided in a foreground. However, Lee teaches wherein the webpage components are generated to cause the user computing device to load components of the user image experience in a background while the model image experience is continued to be provided in a foreground (Lee: Figure 7, paragraph [0119] - To create a cleaner user experience, client devices 350 may load not only the visible items, but also include items that will initially fall outside display area 704. In such embodiments, client devices 350 may additionally load a fifth item 714, a sixth item 716, and a seventh item 718).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Sartori and Singh, in the apparatus and method for wherein the webpage components are generated to cause the user computing device to load components of the user image experience in a background while the model image experience is continued to be provided in a foreground, as taught by Lee since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would provide for fast loading of websites (Lee: paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0407162 A1 A1, Charraud et al discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A PERSONALIZED AND ACCURATE VIRTUAL MAKE-UP TRY-ON
PTO-892 Reference U discloses Virtual Try-On through Image-Based Rendering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached on 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights