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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
The double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained. The current amendment claims are not distinct from the conflicting application.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) is withdrawal in view of amendment.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 15 are amended.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-21 are pending of which claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed on 12/12/2025 regarding claims 1-20 have been fully considered. The arguments regarding to 35 U.S.C 101 are not persuasive.
Regarding to applicant’s argument under Step 2A Prong 1 that the claimed subject matter of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance that “the claimed subject matter doesn’t fall into one of the enumerated subject matter groupings, and specifically not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes”. Examiner respectively disagree because “encrypting data based on a key, the key based on a conversion from a first colorspace to a second colorspace” can be performed by a human with pen and paper. The specification of the instant application paragraph [0053] states that “Any suitable colorspace conversion can be used, including converting to an XYZ colorspace, where the conversion can be pursuant to any suitable mathematical conversions and equations that govern the XYZ colorspace, including suitable tristimulus conversions between RGB and XYZ”. Further, claims didn’t provide any complex algorithm or structure for the encryption and conversion either. Therefore, the human mind can perform the claim limitation(s). Also, for the same rational, “generating an altered key by the processor, wherein the altered key is based on an alteration of the conversion from the first colorspace to the second colorspace” is a mental process. Further, “transmitting the encrypted data or another data” is a method of organizing human activity -interactions between people. Also, In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("'a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation' is not a certain 'method of organizing human activity") doesn’t apply here because it is relating to steps for creating drug formulation. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is abstract.
Regarding to applicant’s argument under Step 2A Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance that “Contrary to the allegations in the Office Action and as discussed above, the claimed subject matter includes additional elements. Applicant respectfully submits that a key and an altered key are also additional elements that are recited in claim 1 in a specific technical implementation in a meaningful way beyond mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components”, examiner respectively points out that the “a key or an altered key” as discussed above are not additional elements. They are part of abstract idea that can be generated by a human.
Further, regarding to applicant’s argument under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance that “the claimed invention recites limitations that provide improvements to a technology or technical field. For example, the elements recited in claim 1 includes specific processes performed by the processor to generate an altered encryption key based on altering a conversion between different colorspaces for improved encryption of data transmission”, examiner respectively disagree because performing human activities using a generic processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely using processor or memory to the abstract idea doesn’t transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
The arguments regarding to 35 U.S.C103 that “Lee does not discuss altering the encryption key based on an alteration of the conversion from the RGB color space to the XYZ color space or "generating an altered key by the processor, wherein the altered key is based on an alteration of the conversion from the first colorspace to the second colorspace" as recited in claim 1. Moreover, as Lee does not disclose altering the conversion from the RGB color space to the XYZ color space” are not persuasive. Lee discloses an RGB color space is converted to correspond to color spaces Ex, Ey and Ez, that is, the color space of the encryption key. Also, paragraph [0059] discloses that the encryption key having color space information and generated randomly using a random number. The randomness of the encryption makes every encryption key unique on every generation and therefore it’s altered key.
The arguments regarding to 35 U.S.C103 that Lee does not teach limitation "transmitting, by the processor, the encrypted another data via the transmission medium to the receiving processor", examiner respectively disagree because Lee paragraph [0086] discloses the encrypted image is transmitted to the host apparatus from the first communicating unit.
The arguments regarding to 35 U.S.C103 that Lee does not teach limitation "wherein the receiving processor receives an indication of the alteration” and claim 2 are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory Obviousness-Type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11,838,401. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claim(s) of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by the Patent No. 11,838,401.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory Obviousness-Type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11,184,150. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claim(s) of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by the Patent No. 11,184,150.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory Obviousness-Type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of Patent No. 10,523,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claim(s) of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by the Patent No. 10,523,420.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applying the subject matter eligibility test, as outlined in MPEP 2106:
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims fall within a statutory category. Claims 9-20 are considered “machines” based claims and claims 1-7 are considered “processes”. Both machines and processes are members of the statutory categories. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong one of the subject matter eligibility test.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception
The claims recite a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. For example, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite encrypting data using a key based on conversion from one colorspace to another colorspace, transmitting encrypted data, generating an altered key based on alteration of the conversion from one colorspace to another colorspace, encrypting another data using altered key and transmitting the encrypted another data and receiving party also receive an indication of the alteration. Such processes are akin to a mental process or methods of organizing human activity, which have been recognized as abstract ideas. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong two.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements, such as a processor, memory and transmitting data from one processor to another processor via a network do not impose any meaningful limits of on the abstract idea. In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that applying generic machine learning techniques to a specific field without improving the underlying technology does not constitute a practical application. The court emphasized that claims must delineate how the machine learning technology achieves a technological improvement. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive concept
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor, memory and transmitting data from one processor to another processor via a network amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 merely add details to the generic off-shelf components that were already disclosed in claims 1, 8 and 15, but do not alter the outcome of the analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, while the claim recites “…an indication of the alteration …”, the specification lacks a detailed description of the term. As established in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161,5 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the specification must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Merely stating that machine learning is used, without further elaboration, does not satisfy this requirement.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification fails to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The absence of details regarding the specific machine learning algorithms employed and how the machine learning model arrives at the conclusion whether the homomorphic encryption is involved in the mode training leaves the skilled artisan without the necessary guidance to implement the claimed invention. As per In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Key limitations, "transmit the encrypted another data via the transmission medium to the receiving processor, wherein the receiving processor receives an indication of the alteration" as presented is unclear because 1) is “an indication of the alteration” part of “the encrypted another data”? 2) are the transmission of another encrypted data separate from “an indication of the alteration” if 1) is negative. Because a person having ordinary skill in the art could not ascertain the claim scope with reasonable certainty, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112(b).
Independent claims 9 and 15 are also rejected for the same rational as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2017/0061584, hereinafter Lim) in view of Lee (US 2010/0034380) and Muppalla et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0180038, hereinafter Muppalla).
Regarding claim 1: Lim discloses A method, comprising:
the key based on a conversion from a first colorspace to a second colorspace (Lim - [0036]: image signal processor 106 may implement back-end interface 342. Back-end interface 342 may receive image data from other image sources than image sensor(s) 102. back-end interface 342 may convert RGB, YCbCr 4:2:0, or YCbCr 4:2:2 formatted image data into YCbCr 4:4:4 color format);
However, Lim doesn’t explicitly teach, but Lee discloses:
generating an altered key by the processor, wherein the altered key is based on an alteration of the conversion from the first colorspace to the second colorspace (Lee - [0082-0083] scan data of an RGB color space is converted to correspond to color spaces Ex, Ey and Ez, that is, the color space of the encryption key. [0059]: The key generating unit 210 generates an encryption key (hereinafter, also referred to as ‘E-KEY’) having color space information. Here, the generated encryption key may be randomly generated, that is, generated by using a random number);
encrypting data by a processor based on a key; and encrypting, by a processor, another data based on the altered key (Lee - [0079]: the first encrypting unit 120 of the scanning apparatus 100 performs operation S16 of an encrypting for the scan image by using the encryption key (E-KEY)); and
transmitting, by the processor, the encrypted data via a transmission medium to the receiving processor; and transmitting, by the processor, the encrypted another data via the transmission medium to the receiving processor (Lee - [0086]: Fig. 4, Then, the scanning apparatus 100 transmits the scan image (data of the converted scan image) encrypted by the encryption key to the host apparatus 200 through the first communicating unit 130 in operation S17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lim with Lee so that color space conversion alteration is used as updated encryption key for data encryption. The modification would have allowed the system to enhance security and system adaptability.
However, the combination of Lim and Lee doesn’t explicitly teach, but Muppalla discloses: Wherein the receiving processor receives an indication of the alteration (Muppalla - [0049]: The decryption key may be received as transmitted).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lim and Lee with Muppalla so that a decryption key (an indication of alteration) is transmitted. The modification would have allowed the system to take further actions based on the received indication.
Regarding claim 2: Lim as modified discloses wherein the key is based on a first color channel of a plurality of color channels of the second colorspace, wherein the altered key is based on a second color channel of the plurality of color channels of the second colorspace (Lim - [0043]: Color space conversion may convert image data to another color format or space (e.g., RBG to YCbCr). Gamma mapping may provide non-linear mapping functions for particular color channels of pixel data (e.g., Y, Cb, and Cr channels) in order to apply different image effects, including, but not limited to, black and white conversion, sepia tone conversion, negative conversion, or solarize conversion)).
wherein encryption using the key causes the data to be encrypted in the first color channel; wherein encryption using the altered key causes the another data to be encrypted in the second color channel (Lee - [0082-0083] scan data of an RGB color space is converted to correspond to color spaces Ex, Ey and Ez, that is, the color space of the encryption key. [0059]: The key generating unit 210 generates an encryption key (hereinafter, also referred to as ‘E-KEY’) having color space information. Here, the generated encryption key may be randomly generated, that is, generated by using a random number).
The reason to combine is in the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5: Lim as modified discloses wherein wherein the alteration of the conversion from the first colorspace to the second colorspace comprises converting the first colorspace to a third colorspace, the first, second, and third colorspaces comprising distinct colorspaces (Lee - [0070]: the processed scan image may be implemented as PCS data corresponding to a standard color space such as an RGB color space defined by R, G, and B color components, an XYZ color space defined by X, Y, Z components, and a Lab color space defined by L, a, and b components).
The reason to combine is the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21: Lim as modified discloses wherein the indication of the alteration comprises an altered decryption key (Muppalla - [0049]: The decryption key may be received as transmitted).
The reason to combine is the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 12: Claims are directed to computer readable medium claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1-2 and 5. Therefore, claims 9-10 and 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5. Furthermore, Lim in para. [0029] discloses computer readable storage medium where the storage medium executes instructions from a processor.
Regarding claims 15-16 and 19: Claims are directed to apparatus/device claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1-2 and 5. Therefore, claims 26-29 are also rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5. Furthermore, Lim in para. [0029] discloses a processor; and a memory (see also Fig. 1).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2017/0061584, hereinafter Lim) in view of Lee (US 2010/0034380, Muppalla et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0180038, hereinafter Muppalla)) and Messler (Pub. No.: US 2009/0103801).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17: Lim as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but Messler discloses wherein the key is based on a superimposition of a first color channel of a plurality of color channels of the first colorspace onto a first color channel of a plurality of color channels of the second colorspace (Messler - [0030]: for a plurality of single-colour images, each representing the superimposition contributions by the original intensity values for another of the colour channels, to be generated based on a respective property or structure of the object or the sample or on a respective dye of the object or the sample and/or for there to be generated, based on a respective property or structure of the object or the sample or on a respective dye of the object or the sample, a single-colour image which represents overall superimposition contributions to the colour channels and corresponds to a pixel-by-pixel combination of the intensity pixels of the single-colour images respectively representing the superimposition contributions by the original intensity values, in particular a pixel-by-pixel combination containing a summation of original intensity values for the colour channels).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lim and Lee, Muppalla with Messler so that the color conversion is a representing of the superimposition contributions by the original intensity values for another of the colour channels. The modification would have allowed the system to convert a colorspace using superimposition.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2017/0061584, hereinafter Lim) in view of Lee (US 2010/0034380), Muppalla et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0180038, hereinafter Muppalla) and Shazeer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0130213, hereinafter Shazeer).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18: Lim as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but Shazeer discloses wherein the key is based on a first ordering of a plurality of color channels of the second colorspace, wherein the altered key is based on a second ordering of the plurality of color channels of the second colorspace, wherein the first ordering is distinct from the second ordering (Shazeer - [0037]: apply an attention mechanism over the inputs at the generation order positions preceding the corresponding position using one or more queries derived from the input at the particular generation order position to generate a updated representation for the particular generation order position).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lim and Lee, Muppalla with Shazeer so that the order sequence can be updated. The modification would have allowed the system to a convert colorspace.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2017/0061584, hereinafter Lim) in view of Lee (US 2010/0034380), Muppalla et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0180038, hereinafter Muppalla) and Holman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0106623).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20: Lim as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but Holman discloses wherein the key is based on a first range of values of a first color channel of a plurality of color channels of the second colorspace, wherein the altered key is based on a second range of values of the first color channel, wherein the first and second ranges are distinct ranges (Holman - [0350]: FIG. 10, e.g., FIG. 10B, shows a unique device encryption key associated with a device that captured the acquired image generating at least partly based on a unique device identifier and at least partly based on a property of the obtained image data module 1022 generating the unique device encryption key (e.g., a WPA key) that is unique to the particular device (e.g., a wearable computer, e.g., Google Glass), at least partly based on a unique device identifier (e.g., a unique number assigned to the device at the time of manufacture) and at least partly based on a feature of the acquired image data (e.g., a number of pixels in the captured image data that have a red color range of between 200 and 250)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lim and Lee, Muppalla with Holman so that encryption key can be based on color range. The modification would have allowed the system to enhance security.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2017/0061584, hereinafter Lim) in view of Lee (US 2010/0034380), Muppalla et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0180038, hereinafter Muppalla) and Dikmen et al. (US 2011/0293179).
Regarding claims 7 and 14: Lim as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but Dikmen discloses wherein the alteration of the conversion from the first colorspace to the second colorspace alters at least one attribute of the conversion from the first colorspace to the second colorspace (Dikmen - [0090]: a fusion formula may be used to modify or change pixel values of a channel of the colorspace image to which the RGB image has been converted).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lim and Lee, Muppalla with Dikmen so that pixel values of a channel of the colorspace image is modified. The modification would have allowed the system to convert colorspace.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aree et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0076127) - Method To Store A Secret QR Code Into A Colored Secure QR Code
Sawada (Patent No.: US 7327875) - Method And Apparatus For Color Conversion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s acting supervisor, Kristine Kincaid can be reached on (571) 270-5143. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8729.
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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights