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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant has amended the independent claims to disclose the chromaticity range of each of the skin color display parts, and then argues that Kunihiko (JP 2001074556) and De Rigal et al. (US 2002/0140936) fail to teach these limitations.
While it is agreed that Kunihiko does not disclose the specifics of the lightness or chromaticity for the first and second skin color display parts, it is noted that De Rigal was used to discuss the CIE color ranges of the skin tones. It appears that De Rigal either teaches explicitly or renders this limitation obvious. De Rigal specifically discloses having 50 different skin color display parts, wherein each are a different color in the skin tone range, with each display part having a lightness range of 25-80, a hue angle range from 40-70 degrees, and a chroma range from 12-30 (⁋s 79-81). De Rigal discloses the skin color range in CIEL*C*h*. Applicant is claiming their skin color range in CIEL*a*b*.
As is noted in currently cited Wetherall et al. (“Skin Color Measurements in Terms of CIELAB Color Space Values”) hue can be calculated from CIELAB by the equation h*=arctan(b*/a*) and chroma can be calculated from CIELAB by the equation C=(a*2 +b*2)1/2 (⁋ bridging 469-470). Using these equations, and converting applicant’s claimed chromaticity ranges into CIEL*C*h*, applicant is claiming a hue of about 40-41 degrees for the first skin color display part and 64-66 degrees for the second color skin part. Applicant is claiming a chroma of about 10-15.6 for the first skin color display part and 25.1-27.7 of the second color skin part. As De Rigal substantially overlaps the ranges in the cited paragraphs above, it is believed that De Rigal fully anticipates the claim language.
However, even if De Rigel doesn’t fully anticipate the claim limitations, it appears that they are still rendered obvious, as it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to have the skin color display parts to have the particular chromaticity ranges claimed, as these appear to be known chromaticity ranges for skin (as discussed by applicant in the specification ⁋ 16-17), and in order to yield the predictable result of having a plurality of skin color display parts which have different colors that run the range of human skin colors, and in order to show a particular chromaticity of skin desired. Further, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Therefore, the rejections have been maintained as noted below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over De Rigal et al. (US 2002/0140936).
In regards to claims 1 and 7, De Rigal discloses a skin color chart (fig. 11) and method of manufacturing a skin color chart for determining an environment where face authentication is performed (When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for determining an environment where face authentication is performed” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.), comprising: a substrate (⁋ 73 support); a first skin color display part configured to show a skin color of a Negroid, the first skin color display part being formed on the substrate (one of the selections 4 shown in fig. 11); and a second skin color display part configured to show a skin color of a Caucasoid (another one of the selections 4 shown in fig. 11), the second skin color display part being formed on the substrate, wherein lightness L* of the first skin color display part in a CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 20<L*<37, and lightness L* of the second skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 74<L*<81 (⁋ 79-80, ⁋ 89 wherein the lightness range disclosed of 25 to 80 plus the disclosure of each of the display parts having a different lightness meets these claim limitations), chromaticity a* and chromaticity b* of the first skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfy 8<a*<12 and 7<b*<10, respectively, and chromaticity a* and chromaticity b* of the second skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfy 10<a*<12 and 23<b*<25, respectively (⁋ 79-81, and as discussed above).
As noted above in the arguments, it appears that ⁋ 79-81 anticipates this limitation. However, in the alternative, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to have the skin color display parts to have the particular chromaticity ranges claimed, as these appear to be known chromaticity ranges for skin (as discussed by applicant in the specification ⁋ 16-17), and in order to yield the predictable result of having a plurality of skin color display parts which have different colors that run the range of human skin colors, in order to show a particular chromaticity of skin desired for color matching. Further, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rigal et al. (US 2002/0140936) in view of DNA paints (https://web.archive.org/web/20161024014429/https://www.dna-paints.com/display-shapes/).
In regards to claims 2 and 8, De Rigal discloses the skin chart and method of making the skin color chart, as disclosed above. De Rigal is silent to each of the first and the second skin color display parts being formed in a three-dimensional shape imitating a human face. However, it is disclosed that emulating the skin texture, color non-uniformity and shininess of real skin in the skin chart would be beneficial (⁋ 6-11 and 101-103). Further, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the general art of color charts/displays to have speed shapes, often in the shape similar to the shape which the color will be applied to, in order to better emulate the real-world changes the color would display when affected by shadows and textures, which lead to better color matching over a flat color display part.
For example, DNA paints discloses a plurality of different types of speed shapes, in which color can be applied, thus allowing the consumer to see a better emulation of the real-world changes the color would display when affected by shadows and textures.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of this teaching, and the teaching of De Rigal of trying to emulate the texture, shininess, and color non-uniformity of skin, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create skin color display parts formed in a three-dimensional shape imitating the human face. This would be done to allow the skin color display parts to better emulate skin for better skin color matching.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rigal et al. (US 2002/0140936).
In regards to claims 4 and 10, De Rigal discloses the skin chart and method of making the skin color chart, as disclosed above. Additionally, De Rigal discloses a third skin color display part configured to show a skin color between the skin color in the first skin color display part and the skin color in the second skin color display part (fig. 11 and ⁋ 79-80 and 89), the third skin color display part being formed on the substrate (⁋ 73, support). De Rigal is silent specifically to the lightness L* of the third skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 62<L*<68. However, it is disclosed that the each of the samples may have a lightness range from about 25-80 (⁋ 80) and that the lightness range of each sample on the chart can be different (⁋ 89). In light of these teachings it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try to have the third skin color display part have a lightness L* in the CIE L*a*b* color space that satisfies 62<L*<68, in order to yield the predictable result of having a plurality of skin color display parts which have different lightnesses as discussed in De Rigal, in the range disclosed, and in order to show a particular lightness of skin color shade desired for color matching. Further, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claims 5 and 11, De Rigal further discloses, on the substrate, at least one of: a fourth skin color display part configured to show a skin color between the skin color in the first skin color display part and the skin color in the third skin color display part; and a fifth skin color display part configured to show a skin color between the skin color in the second skin color display part and the skin color in the third skin color display part (fig. 11 shows 5 different skin color display parts 4, wherein each of the display parts is disclosed as being able to have different lightnesses, as discussed in ⁋ 89).
In regards to claims 6 and 12, De Rigal is silent to the color of the substrate. However, the examiner takes official notice that black substrates in color charts are very well-known, and are used in order to allow high contrast to the color being shown. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the substrate of De Rigal be black, as it is well-known in the art, and in order to allow high contrast for the color being shown.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunihiko (JP 2001074556 – translation provided) in view of over De Rigal et al. (US 2002/0140936).
In regards to claims 1 and 7, Kunihiko discloses a skin color chart (fig. 1 and abstract) and method of manufacturing a skin color chart for determining an environment where face authentication is performed (When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for determining an environment where face authentication is performed” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.), comprising: a substrate (11); a first skin color display part configured to show a skin color of a Negroid, the first skin color display part being formed on the substrate (15, abstract); and a second skin color display part configured to show a skin color of a Caucasoid, the second skin color display part being formed on the substrate (12 abstract). Kunihiko is silent to the specific lightnesses and chromaticity of each of the skin color display parts. However, it is known to select the lightness and chromaticity of the skin color display part based on the skin color of interest, and would be merely a matter of routine optimization to select skin colors with a particular lightness and chromaticity for the particular use case the color chart is being used in.
For example, De Rigal discloses the skin chart and method of making the skin color chart, as disclosed above, comprising a first skin color display part configured to show a skin color of a Negroid, the first skin color display part being formed on the substrate (one of the selections 4 shown in fig. 11); and a second skin color display part configured to show a skin color of a Caucasoid (another one of the selections 4 shown in fig. 11), the second skin color display part being formed on the substrate, wherein lightness L* of the first skin color display part in a CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 20<L*<37, and lightness L* of the second skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 74<L*<81 (⁋ 79-80, ⁋ 89 wherein the lightness range of each of the display parts is different and disclosed as being in a range of 25 to 80 meets the last limitations), chromaticity a* and chromaticity b* of the first skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfy 8<a*<12 and 7<b*<10, respectively, and chromaticity a* and chromaticity b* of the second skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfy 10<a*<12 and 23<b*<25, respectively (⁋ 79-81, and as discussed above in the arguments).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try have the first and second skin color display parts be selected such that the lightness L* of the first skin color display part in a CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 20<L*<37, lightness L* of the second skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 74<L*<81, chromaticity a* and chromaticity b* of the first skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfy 8<a*<12 and 7<b*<10, respectively, and chromaticity a* and chromaticity b* of the second skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfy 10<a*<12 and 23<b*<25, respectively, as generally taught by De Rigal, as a matter of routine optimization to select skin colors with a particular lightness and chromaticity for the particular use case the color chart is being used in and based on the lightness and chromaticity of interest.
In regards to claims 3 and 9, Kunihiko further discloses a gray display part having a reflectance and being formed on the substrate (16, and abstract), but is silent to a plurality of gray display parts having different reflectances. However the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the general art of color charts/displays to have a plurality of gray display parts having different reflectances on a substrate, which is done to allow calibration against a plurality of different reflectances (for example, see cited prior art in previous IDS). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into Kunihiko’s skin color chart a plurality of gray display parts having different reflectances, as this is well-known to do, and in order to allow calibration against a plurality of different reflectances.
In regards to claims 4 and 10, Kunihiko discloses the skin chart and method of making the skin color chart, as disclosed above. Additionally, Kunihiko discloses a third skin color display part configured to show a skin color between the skin color in the first skin color display part and the skin color in the second skin color display part (13, abstract), the third skin color display part being formed on the substrate (⁋ 73, support) with the lightness of the third skin color being between the lightness of the first and second skin color display parts (abstract). Kunihiko is silent specifically to the lightness L* of the third skin color display part in the CIE L*a*b* color space satisfies 62<L*<68. However, the combination disclosed above shows that the each of the samples may have a lightness range from about 25-80 (De Rigal ⁋ 80) and that the lightness range of each sample on the chart can be different (De Rigal ⁋ 89 and Kunihiko abstract). In light of these teachings it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try to have the third skin color display part have a lightness L* in the CIE L*a*b* color space that satisfies 62<L*<68, in order to yield the predictable result of having a plurality of skin color display parts which have different lightnesses, as discussed in De Rigel, in the range disclosed, and in order to show a particular lightness of skin color shade desired. Further, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claims 5 and 11, Kunihiko further discloses, on the substrate, at least one of: a fourth skin color display part configured to show a skin color between the skin color in the first skin color display part and the skin color in the third skin color display part (14, abstract); and a fifth skin color display part configured to show a skin color between the skin color in the second skin color display part and the skin color in the third skin color display part (20 and 21 are abraded skin colors of the slightly bright skinned race 13, which would inherently be darker than the display part 13).
In regards to claims 6 and 12, the substrate is black (11, abstract).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wetherall et al. (“Skin Color Measurements in Terms of CIELAB Color Space Values"), USDHS (“Assessing variation in human skin tone to inform face recognition system design”).
Weatherall discloses how to convert CIEL*a*b* into CIEL*C*h*.
USDHS, while not prior art, does appear to be able to be used as evidentiary disclosure of the typical CIELAB and CIELCh range of “natural” skin tones.
Conclusion
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 KARA E GEISEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/KARA E. GEISEL/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877