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 .
Response to Arguments
Prior rejections under Prior Art and 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 2 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process: “Amended claim 1 recites limitations such as "generate an image search result ...,""store, as evaluation data, the image search result or the respective degrees of similarity ...", "correct, by use of the evaluation data, a probability distribution model expressing color ambiguity," and "convert a color specified by the user to a third color feature value based on the color space information and the corrected probability distribution model..." Applicant submits that these limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and at least because of that, amended claim 1 does not recite any judicial exception. Thus, amended claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One.”
The above listed limitations are all mental processes. A person can generate a search result (compare an inquiry to a database), store data (human memory), correct a probability distribution model (altering a model), and converting a color to a feature value (assigning an alphanumerical string to a color).
On Page 2 of Remarks, Applicant further argues “Even if, arguendo, the features of amended claim 1 could be practically performed in the human mind, the features of amended claim 1 are also directed to improvements to the probability distribution model and/or degree of similarity calculating methods recited in claim 1, by accounting for "ambiguity in human perception of colors" (Specification at 0008). Furthermore, the claimed invention further provides an improvement to the color determination apparatus by correcting the distribution model based on the evaluation data and updating the color specified by the user, in a similar manner to how the network anomaly detection in Example 47, claim 3 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility examples was updated real-time to adjust network security parameters based on evolving, incoming data, rather than relying on static, predefined rules. Thus, claim 1 is further patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.”
The correcting of the probability distribution model does not amount to a meaningful technical improvement to a particular field of endeavor. Additionally, the correction of the probability distribution model in claim 1 does not expressly account for ambiguity in human perception of colors; rather, the probability distribution model is described as “expressing color ambiguity” (which is vaguely recited and does not link the model to any meaningful improvement), and the correction of the probability distribution model is recited as generically being performed using evaluation data. Further, while the amended claim does use the corrected probability distribution model to convert a color to a third color feature vector, the third color feature vector is not actually used in any meaningful way that would impact or improve the technical field. Converting a color to a vector using a model is not an improvement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 5-23 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 14) recites: “convert a color specified by the user to a third color feature value based on the color space information and the corrected probability distribution model, the third color feature value being a feature value with regard to the color specified by the user.” The underlined elements lack proper antecedence. First, ‘a color specified by the user’ should recite ‘a second color specified by the user’. Secondly, ‘the color specified by the user’ should recite, ‘the second color specified by the user’.
Claims 5-12, 15-19, and 20-23 are rejected as dependent on the above claims.
Claim 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22 recite “the color specified by the user” and/or “the specified color”, which are indefinite because it is unclear which color is being referred to (the initial color specified by the user or the second color specified by the user). These are all being interpreted as in reference to the initial color specified by the user.
Claim 6 is further rejected as dependent on claim 5; Claims 11-12 are further rejected as dependent on claim 10. Claim 16 is further rejected as dependent on claim 15.
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, 7-9, and 13-14, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of calculating color similarities, generating search results, and correcting a model, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “A color determination apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: for each respective image of a plurality of images, extract a first color feature value from the respective image based on color space information defining a color space, the first color feature value being a feature value with regard to a respective color of the respective image of the plurality of images;
convert a color specified by a user to a second color feature value based on the color space information, the second color feature value being a feature value with regard to the specified color specified by the user;
for each respective image of the plurality of images, calculate a respective degree of similarity between the first color feature value of the respective image and the second color feature value;
generate an image search result based on the respective degrees of similarity corresponding to the plurality of images;
store the image search result or the respective degrees of similarity corresponding to the plurality of images, and an image that the user has selected from the search result, as evaluation data;
correct, by use of the evaluation data, a probability distribution model expressing color ambiguity; and
convert a color specified by the user to a third color feature value based on the color space information and the corrected probability distribution model, the third color feature value being a feature value with regard to the color specified by the user.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can identify a color feature value in an image, convert a color to a color feature vector, calculate degrees of similarity, generate a search result (i.e. identify matches, etc.), mentally store data, correct a model based on stored data, and convert a color to a third feature value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a memory and processor. These are recited at a level of generality such that they amount to generic elements for storing and executing the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of the mental process of changing the probability distribution model. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of the mental process of determining the second color feature at a maximum value of the probability distribution model, without significantly more. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of the mental process of using HSV color space, without significantly more. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-14, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea analogous to the mental process of claim 1 and 7-9. Claims 14 and 21-23 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, which is recited at a level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic storage and instructions for the performance of the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5-23 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b), and claims 1, 7-9, and 13-14, 17-19, and 21-23 are further rejected under 35 USC 101. These claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 1, 13, and 14 (and the respective dependent claims) in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 14) recites: “A color determination apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: for each respective image of a plurality of images, extract a first color feature value from the respective image based on color space information defining a color space, the first color feature value being a feature value with regard to a respective color of the respective image of the plurality of images;
convert a color specified by a user to a second color feature value based on the color space information, the second color feature value being a feature value with regard to the specified color specified by the user;
for each respective image of the plurality of images, calculate a respective degree of similarity between the first color feature value of the respective image and the second color feature value;
generate an image search result based on the respective degrees of similarity corresponding to the plurality of images;
store the image search result or the respective degrees of similarity corresponding to the plurality of images, and an image that the user has selected from the search result, as evaluation data;
correct, by use of the evaluation data, a probability distribution model expressing color ambiguity; and
convert a color specified by the user to a third color feature value based on the color space information and the corrected probability distribution model, the third color feature value being a feature value with regard to the color specified by the user.”
Gershon teaches a method for image searching wherein dominant color values are extracted from images in an image database, and matched with a user input text and color search. Cieplinski teaches deriving color descriptors from images for matching with an input query of image color. Wang teaches image search ranking based on search results responsive to a text query from a user, wherein similarity scores between color layouts are used. Lieb teaches receiving a user-input color value and searching a database for matching images using the color value. Katsutani teaches image retrieval based on an image feature vector of a query image and image feature vectors of images to be retrieved. However, none of these references disclose the bolded limitations above.
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 AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights