Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/492,965

METHOD, APPARATUS AND PROGRAM FOR PROVIDING PERSONAL COLOR DIAGNOSIS PLATFORM USING IMAGE

Non-Final OA §101§102§103
Filed
Oct 24, 2023
Examiner
DANG, DUY M
Art Unit
2662
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
BLACK TANGERINE CORP.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
778 granted / 852 resolved
+29.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
878
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§103
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 852 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103
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 Interpretation Claims 1-13 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims. Claim 14 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory”, “processor” and instructions provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations. Claim 15 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0167550 A1, referred as Zheng hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches a method of providing a personal color diagnosis platform using an image, which is performed by a computing device, the method comprising: acquiring a captured image of a user's face (see figure 2, S201; figure 6, S601); dividing the face in the image (see figure 6, S605 (first region image and other region images so facial image captured is divided into region images)); extracting a skin color of a designated area from the divided face (see figure 6, S605 (performing skin color detection on the first region image and other regions images)); and extracting a color matching the user based on the extracted skin color (see figure 6, S606 (target expression material image matching the first color information and second skin color information); para. [0062] (skin color matching between the image obtained through screening and the to be processed facial image)). Regarding claim 2, Zheng further teaches wherein the dividing of the face includes: extracting a plurality of feature points that become features of the face (see figure 12, item 1041 (second facial point recognition unit) and para. [0138]); and dividing the designated area based on the feature points (see figure 12, item 1042 (second region determination unit) and para. [0138]). Regarding claim 9, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter. Zheng further teaches a memory stored instructions and a processor for executing the stored instructions to perform the method of claim 1 (see para. [0009] (memory stored a plurality instructions and processor for executing the stored instructions)). Regarding claim 10, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter. Zheng further teaches a recording medium readable by a computing device on which a program for performing a method of claim 1 (see para. [0009] (memory stored a plurality instructions and processor for executing the stored instructions)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng. The advanced statements as applied to claims 1-2 are incorporated hereinafter. Regarding claim 8, Zheng does not teach claim limitations “acquiring clothing information from a shopping mall; extracting at least one color included in clothing based on the clothing information; designating a representative color among the at least one extracted color; and providing the user with clothing designated with a representative color included in the color matching the user”. However, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to enhance shopping experience and reduce potential return. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporated such claim limitations in combination with Zheng for that reasons. 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the following reasons. Regarding claim 10, this claim is directed to “a recording medium” which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter); and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). The examiner suggests an amendment to the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” to limit the scope to only the statutory media in order to meet 35 U.S.C. 101 requirements. Any amendment to claim and/or specification should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the extracting of the color matching the user includes: quantifying the skin color extracted from the designated area using a prestored color system, and quantifying colors for yellowness and redness; quantifying saturation and lightness of the skin extracted from each of the plurality of areas using a pre-stored tone system; and extracting a representative skin color of the user from values obtained by 20 quantifying the color, saturation, and lightness of the skin.” Claims 4-7 depend on claim 3 and thus are allowable for the same reasons as well. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MacEwen (U.S. Pat. No. 11,348,334 B1) teaches a system for skin color matching comprising: acquiring a captured image of a user's face (see figure 3, 310; figure 6, S601); dividing the face in the image (see col. 11 lines 6-12); extracting a skin color of a designated area from the divided face (see col. 2 lines 34-35); and extracting a color matching the user based on the extracted skin color (see figure3, 322). Matsunaga (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0131856 A1) teaches: acquiring a captured image of a user's face (see para. [0024]); dividing the face in the image (see para. [0048]); extracting a skin color of a designated area from the divided face (see para. [0025]); and extracting a color matching the user based on the extracted skin color (see para. [0025] (“color information extracted from the hand region is compared to color information extracted from a face region, a determination of "bare hands" may be made when the pieces of color information are similar to each other”). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM. 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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. DMD 9/2025 /DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597148
Framework for Efficient Generation and Streaming of Augmented Frames of Colors and Depth Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591993
INFORMATION GENERATION APPARATUS, INFORMATION GENERATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579610
LOSSY COMPRESSION TECHNOLOGY FOR SMALL IMAGE TILES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573153
Determining Traversable Space from Single Images
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567176
DATA COMPRESSION AND DECOMPRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 852 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month