DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 02/18/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1-5, 7, 14-16, and 20 are rejected; claims 6, 8-13, 17, and 19 are objected.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
41066.. Claims 1-5, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shugrina et al (US Pub: 2021/0082159) and in further view of Celebi et al (Improving the Performance of K-Means for Color Quantization, 01/02/2011).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Shugrina et al teaches: A device, comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and an image to palette representation logic comprising a neural network configured to receive an input data to generate prediction data [p0138], the neural network comprising: a multi-step convolution pathway comprising a plurality of convolution steps [p0161]; a multi-step upsampling pathway comprising a plurality of upsampling steps, wherein the plurality of upsampling steps comprises an input to receive output data from a corresponding convolution pathway step [p0180]; and wherein, in response to receiving the input data, feature map output data is generated at the plurality of convolution steps, and at least one step of the plurality of upsampling steps utilizes at least the generated feature map data to generate prediction data [p0161, p0180]; wherein the neural network is further configured to: extract one or more features from the input data [p0161 (Taking high-frequency details from encoder is feature extraction.)]; and generate the prediction data based on the extracted one or more features [p0177, p0199].
Shugrina et al does not calculate a vector summation of a set of vectors associated with the input data. In the same field of endeavor, Celebi teaches: calculate a vector summation of a set of vectors associated with the input data [page 2: 2.1 (input data as a set of vectors); page 6: Calculate new center as mean of the points.]; generate the prediction data representing the input data in a palette form based on the calculated vector summation and the extracted one or more features [page 1: p03, p04 selecting a small set of colors is palette design and determining a custom palette from input data.); page 5: p01, page 6: Algorithm 2 (Representative palette color is based on area weighted vector summation.)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to generate representative palette data to compress input values and preserve dominant image colors.
Regarding claim 2 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Shugrina et al further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the neural network is configured to display the generated prediction data to a user [p0136].
Regarding claim 3 (original), Shugrina et al further teaches: The device of claim 2, wherein the input data is an image and is received from the user [p0024, p0060].
Regarding claim 4 (original), Shugrina et al further teaches: The device of claim 3, wherein the neural network is configured to: identify one or more objects in the image; determine one or more colors for each identified object [p0042]; calculate a set of overall areas comprising the one or more determined colors; and generate a palette based on the calculated set of overall areas [p0124-p0126].
Regarding claim 5 (original), Shugrina et al does not specify a vector associated with a color. In the same field of endeavor, The device of claim 4, wherein the neural network is further configured to: generate a vector associated with each of the one or more colors [page 4: 3.2], wherein a length of the vector is indicative of a cross-section of an area comprising each of the one or more colors; and calculate the set of overall areas by adding lengths of each generated vector [page 3: fig. 1, page 4: p01 (Amplitude in a polar plot is radial length representing radius vector. The number of pixels with a hue value represents an area. As length equates to pixel count, adding vector length is equivalent to adding pixel counts per hue to obtain overall areas.)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to take each area histogram bin of Shugrina et al’s teaching and encode it as Berezhnoy et al’s radial vector with amplitude equal to the bin’s pixel count and calculate overall area by summing the radial amplitude across the bin for a predictable summing result.
Claims 14 (currently amended) and 15-16 (original) have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 1, 4, and 5 respectively.
Claim 20 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Shugrina et al’s further teaching on: one or more devices; one or more processors coupled to the one or more devices; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a neural network configured to receive an input data to generate prediction data [p0120].
51066.. Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shugrina et al (US Pub: 2021/0082159) and Celebi et al (Improving the Performance of K-Means for Color Quantization, 01/02/2011); and in further view of Bahng et al (Coloring with Words: Guiding Image Colorization Through Text-based Palette Generation, 08/07/2018).
Regarding claim 7 (original), Shugrina et al in view of Celebi et al does not disclose input data to be a phrase. In the same field of endeavor, Bahng et al teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the input data is a phrase [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap image palette source with text generated palette to associate text with color for improving user experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 8-13, 17-19 is 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.
Conclusion
7. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment 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 extension fee 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.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights