DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Ramos does not disclose “deterministically mapping” because Excel does not guarantee that a given categorical variable is always mapped to the same color every time a chart is generated.
This argument is not persuasive.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require that a categorical variable be persistently mapped to the same color across different workbooks, executions, or user sessions. Rather, the claim requires that the mapping be non-random and rule-based. Ramos discloses that when a pie chart is generated, Excel automatically assigns distinct colors to categorical variables from a predefined palette. Once the categories are provided, the assignment occurs in a predictable and repeatable manner during chart generation.
Such automatic, rule-based assignment constitutes deterministic mapping as claimed.
Applicant’s argument improperly imports a requirement of long-term or global color persistence that is not recited in claim 1.
Applicant further argues that Ramos assigns colors to categorical variables rather than categorical values and therefore does not meet the claim limitation.
This argument is not persuasive.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the categorical value (e.g., “1st quarter,” “2nd quarter”) is the value associated with the categorical variable and is what is actually mapped to a respective color in Ramos. The distinction asserted by applicant is semantic and does not reflect a meaningful technical difference in the context of the claim language. Ramos maps each category provided in the data set to a corresponding color, which satisfies to claim limitation.
Applicant further argues that the numerical values (e.g., $23,871, $19,202, etc.) do not affect color selection in Excel and therefore Ramos does not disclose mapping based on the categorical value.
This argument is not persuasive.
The claim does not require that numerical magnitude control color assignment. The claim requires that the mapping be based on the categorical value associated with the categorical variable. In Ramos, the categorical values (e.g., quarters) are what determine which slice receives which color. The numerical value merely defines slice size and do not negate the fact that color assignment is based on the categorical value itself.
Nothing in the claim requires a mathematical relationship between the numeric data values and the assigned colors.
Applicant further asserts that deterministic mapping requires that each categorical variable always be mapped to the same color every time mapping occurs.
This interpretation is not supported by the claim language. The claim does not recite “always,” “across executions,” or any requirement of persistent color identity beyond the execution of the claimed method. Ramos discloses a predictable non-random mapping during chart generation, which satisfies the claimed limitation under BRI.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments rely on an unduly narrow interpretation of the claim language that is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17 and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Website) Diana Ramos, “How to Make and Customize Pie Charts in Excel”, smartsheet, https://www.smartsheet.com/pie-chart-excel?srsltid=AfmBOooLhc1bqvdzOOn-vZ_lQD8L5s43XQEGCJZbx41DT9q7vgrKhSnF (published Aug. 27, 2018) (herein after referred to as Ramos) in view of [Morovic; Peter et al., US 20120057781 A1] (herein Morovic).
Regarding claim 1:
Ramos discloses:
1. A computer-implemented method [Ramos: page 1: title: “How to Make and Customize
Pie Charts in Excel”; page 5: “In this section, we’ll show you the steps to create a pie chart in Excel 2011 for Mac.”; Examiner: Excel is a software program inherently running on a computer and thus it’s computer-implemented.], comprising:
receiving data [Ramos: page 5: “1. Open a blank worksheet in Excel. Enter data into the worksheet”], in which each datum [Ramos: page 5: “$23,871”, “$19,202”, “$25,564”, “$22,704”] therein has one of a plurality of categorical values [Ramos: page 5: “$23,871”, “$19,202”, “$25,564”, “$22,704”] associated with a categorical variable [Ramos: page 5: “1st”, “2nd”, “3rd”, “4th”];
for each datum [Ramos: page 5: “$23,871”, “$19,202”, “$25,564”, “$22,704”] therein, deterministically mapping the categorical variable [Ramos: page 5: “1st”, “2nd”, “3rd”, “4th”] to a respective one of a plurality of colors [Ramos: page 6: blue, red, green and purple] in a color space ,hereinafter the "respective color" [Ramos: page 6: blue, red, green and purple; Examiner: Each color is inherently from a color space. Also, note that most version of Excel, including Excel 2011, provide an option to change the colors of the slices. For example, from a color pallete or a color wheel.], based on the categorical value [Ramos: page 5: “2. Click Chart > Pie (hovering over the chart types will show brief info about them), and then click Pie”; page 6: “3. The pie chart appears on the worksheet.”; Examiner: As shown a pie chart is automatically generated with each slice having a different color.] associated with the categorical variable [Ramos: page 5: “1st”, “2nd”, “3rd”, “4th”]
transforming each respective color [Ramos: page 6: blue, red, green and purple] to which each categorical variable [Ramos: page 5: “1st”, “2nd”, “3rd”, “4th”] is deterministically mapped to yield a minimum threshold separation between the respective colors [Ramos: page 6: blue, red, green and purple; Examiner: As shown on page 6, the colors have been automatically selected by Excel when the pie is generated and each slide is of a different color from one another so that they easily visually discernible. Accordingly, the minimum threshold separation has been automatically selected by Excel.];
and displaying a graphical representation of the data [Ramos: page 5: “2. Click Chart > Pie (hovering over the chart types will show brief info about them), and then click Pie”; page 6: “3. The pie chart appears on the worksheet.”, the graphical representation comprising the color [Ramos: page 6: blue, red, green and purple] to which each categorical variable [Ramos: page 5: “1st”, “2nd”, “3rd”, “4th”] is respectively deterministically mapped and as transformed to yield the minimum threshold separation between the respective colors [Ramos: page 6: blue, red, green and purple; Examiner: As shown on page 6, the colors have been automatically selected by Excel when the pie is generated and each slide is of a different color from one another so that they easily visually discernible. Accordingly, the minimum threshold separation has been automatically selected by Excel.].
However, Ramos does not expressly disclose:
by: providing at least a portion of the categorical value associated with the categorical variable as a hash key to a hashing function; generating via the hashing function a hash value based on the hash key; and mapping the hash value to the respective color.
Morovic discloses:
by: providing at least a portion of the categorical value associated with the categorical variable as a hash key to a hashing function [Morovic: ¶ 0026: “At block 304, the next (first) pixel of the original image is obtained and the color value of the pixel is converted to a hash key. Any suitable hashing function or algorithm may be used to convert the pixel color value to the hash key. In embodiments, each pixel has a different index, thereby avoiding address clashes. In an embodiment, the hash key may be generated by the following hash function: Index=F(r,g,b)=r256256+g256+b”: “Any suitable hashing function or algorithm may be used to convert the pixel color value to the hash key”]; generating via the hashing function a hash value based on the hash key [Morovic: ¶ 0026: “ At block 304, the next (first) pixel of the original image is obtained and the color value of the pixel is converted to a hash key. Any suitable hashing function or algorithm may be used to convert the pixel color value to the hash key. In embodiments, each pixel has a different index, thereby avoiding address clashes. In an embodiment, the hash key may be generated by the following hash function: Index=F(r,g,b)=r256256+g256+b”: “hash function: Index=F(r,g,b)=r256256+g256+b”]; and mapping the hash value to the respective color [Morovic: ¶ 0026: “ At block 304, the next (first) pixel of the original image is obtained and the color value of the pixel is converted to a hash key. Any suitable hashing function or algorithm may be used to convert the pixel color value to the hash key. In embodiments, each pixel has a different index, thereby avoiding address clashes. In an embodiment, the hash key may be generated by the following hash function: Index=F(r,g,b)=r256256+g256+b”: “At block 304, the next (first) pixel of the original image is obtained and the color value of the pixel is converted to a hash key”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Morovic in the invention of Ramos to yield the predictable result of enabling automatic color selection and thereby reducing manual user input.
Regarding claim 3:
Ramos in view of Morovic discloses:
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein mapping the hash value to the respective color comprises mapping the hash value to one or more parameters of the respective color [Morovic: ¶ 0026: “ At block 304, the next (first) pixel of the original image is obtained and the color value of the pixel is converted to a hash key. Any suitable hashing function or algorithm may be used to convert the pixel color value to the hash key. In embodiments, each pixel has a different index, thereby avoiding address clashes. In an embodiment, the hash key may be generated by the following hash function: Index=F(r,g,b)=r256256+g256+b”: “Any suitable hashing function or algorithm may be used to convert the pixel color value to the hash key”].
Regarding claim 7:
Ramos in view of Morovic discloses:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein transforming each respective color to which each categorical variable is deterministically mapped to yield a minimum threshold separation between the respective colors comprises adjusting a location of each respective color in the color space to provide a separation between locations of the respective colors sufficient to yield the minimum threshold separation between the respective colors [Ramos: page 6: blue, red, green and purple; Examiner: As shown on page 6, the colors have been automatically selected by Excel when the pie is generated and each slide is of a different color from one another so that they easily visually discernible. Accordingly, the minimum threshold separation has been automatically selected by Excel. Inherent that each color has a unique location on the color space].
Regarding claim 8:
The limitations of claim 8 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 1 above. Processor and memory inherent from the Ramos’ Mac computer which runs the Excel software.
Regarding claim 10:
The limitations of claim 10 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14:
The limitations of claim 14 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15:
The limitations of claim 15 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 1 above. Processor and memory and CRM inherent from the Ramos’ Mac computer which runs the Excel software.
Regarding claim 17:
The limitations of claim 17 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20:
The limitations of claim 20 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Website) Diana Ramos, “How to Make and Customize Pie Charts in Excel”, smartsheet, https://www.smartsheet.com/pie-chart-excel?srsltid=AfmBOooLhc1bqvdzOOn-vZ_lQD8L5s43XQEGCJZbx41DT9q7vgrKhSnF (published Aug. 27, 2018) (herein after referred to as Ramos) in view of [Morovic; Peter et al., US 20120057781 A1] (herein Morovic) and further in view of [Wang; Meng et al., US 20110305386 A1] (herein Wang).
Regarding claim 4:
Ramos in view of Morovic discloses:
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3,
wherein mapping the hash value to a perceptual lightness parameter and parameters that represent the colors red, green, blue [Morovic: ¶ 0027: “] In the above formula, "Index" equals the hash key into the hash table generated for a pixel of the original image, "r" equals the red component of the pixel color value, "g" equals the green component of the of the pixel color value, and "b" equals the blue component of the pixel color value”].
However, Ramos in view of Morovic does not expressly disclose:
and yellow, according to a CIELAB color space model.
Wang discloses:
and yellow, according to a CIELAB color space model [Wang: ¶ 0024: “ FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary color space transformation. Example color space transformation module 214 transforms a color within a red, green, blue (RGB) color space 302 or a cyan, magenta, yellow, and black (CMYK) color space (not shown) into a color within a CIE L*a*b* (CIELAB) color domain or space 304. The RGB color space model and the CMYK color space model are both designed to render images on devices having limited color capabilities. In contrast, the CIELAB space is designed to better approximate human vision, and therefore provides more subtle distinctions across a larger number of colors”; ¶ 0025: “Each color within the CIELAB color space 304 is represented by a set of coordinates expressed in terms of an L* axis 306, an a* axis 308, and a b* axis 310. The L* axis 306 represents the luminance of the color. For example, if L*=0 the result is the color black and if L*=100 the result is the color white. The a* axis represents a scale between the color red and the color green, where a negative a* value indicates the color green and a positive a* value indicates the color red. The b* axis represents a scale between the color yellow and the color blue, where a negative b* value indicates the color blue and a positive b* value indicates the color yellow”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Wang in the invention of Ramos in view of Morovic to yield the predictable result of enhancing perceptual uniformity (e.g., making the slices more visually distinct).
Regarding claim 5:
Ramos in view of Morovic discloses:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3.
However, Ramos in view of Morovic does not expressly disclose:
wherein mapping the hash value to one or more parameters of the respective color comprises mapping the hash value to one or more parameters according to a CIELUV color space model for human perceptual uniformity of colors.
Wang discloses:
wherein mapping the hash value to one or more parameters of the respective color comprises mapping the hash value to one or more parameters according to a CIELUV color space model for human perceptual uniformity of colors [Wang: ¶ 0024: “ FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary color space transformation. Example color space transformation module 214 transforms a color within a red, green, blue (RGB) color space 302 or a cyan, magenta, yellow, and black (CMYK) color space (not shown) into a color within a CIE L*a*b* (CIELAB) color domain or space 304. The RGB color space model and the CMYK color space model are both designed to render images on devices having limited color capabilities. In contrast, the CIELAB space is designed to better approximate human vision, and therefore provides more subtle distinctions across a larger number of colors”: “In contrast, the CIELAB space is designed to better approximate human vision, and therefore provides more subtle distinctions across a larger number of colors”; ¶ 0025: “Each color within the CIELAB color space 304 is represented by a set of coordinates expressed in terms of an L* axis 306, an a* axis 308, and a b* axis 310. The L* axis 306 represents the luminance of the color. For example, if L*=0 the result is the color black and if L*=100 the result is the color white. The a* axis represents a scale between the color red and the color green, where a negative a* value indicates the color green and a positive a* value indicates the color red. The b* axis represents a scale between the color yellow and the color blue, where a negative b* value indicates the color blue and a positive b* value indicates the color yellow”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Wang in the invention of Ramos in view of Morovic to yield the predictable result of enhancing perceptual uniformity (e.g., making the slices more visually distinct).
Regarding claim 11:
The limitations of claim 11 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12:
The limitations of claim 12 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18:
The limitations of claim 18 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19:
The limitations of claim 19 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Website)
Diana Ramos, “How to Make and Customize Pie Charts in Excel”, smartsheet, https://www.smartsheet.com/pie-chart-excel?srsltid=AfmBOooLhc1bqvdzOOn-vZ_lQD8L5s43XQEGCJZbx41DT9q7vgrKhSnF (published Aug. 27, 2018) (herein after referred to as Ramos) in view of [Morovic; Peter et al., US 20120057781 A1] (herein Morovic), [Wang; Meng et al., US 20110305386 A1] (herein Wang) and further in view of [Ikeda; Satoshi, US 20170329964 A1].
Regarding claim 6:
Ramos in view of Morovic and Wang discloses:
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5.
However, Ramos in view of Morovic and Wang does not expressly disclose:
wherein mapping the hash value to the one or more parameters of the respective color comprises mapping the hash value to hue, chroma, and luminance parameters of a cylindrical color space model in accordance with a human perception of color.
Ikeda discloses:
wherein mapping the hash value to the one or more parameters of the respective color comprises mapping the hash value to hue, chroma, and luminance parameters of a cylindrical color space model in accordance with a human perception of color [Ikeda: ¶ 0073: “In addition, the visualization unit 24 may adopt such a configuration that generates coloring information by using a value represented by HSV (Hue Saturation Value color model), not limited to RGB, for example. That is, the coloring information may be anything if the coloring information reflects the similarity represented by the hash value (hereinafter, the same applies to each example embodiment)”; Examiner: HSV is inherently a model in accordance with human perception of color].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Ikeda in the invention of Ramos in view of Morovic and Wang to yield the predictable result of enhancing uniform color distribution as cylindrical models are designed how humans perceive color.
Regarding claim 13:
The limitations of claim 13 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 6 above.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Koosha Sharifi-Tafreshi whose telephone number is (571)270-5897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM to 5PM EST.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/KOOSHA SHARIFI-TAFRESHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628