DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/073624 which claims benefit of application no. 63/223,623 filed 07/20/21.
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) 20-27 and 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al. (U.S. 2005/0128484), McClanahan et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0032965) and Axelrod (U.S. Patent 8,089,482).
In reference to claim 20, Rodrigues et al. discloses a computer-implemented method for displaying a color and formula adjustment of an asset to be repainted (see paragraphs 1 and 5 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses a method for matching paint on vehicles which utilizes a video monitor display to assist the user in selecting an optimally matched color coating.), comprising:
providing via a digital display a graphical user interface comprising one or more selectable elements for retrieving spectrophotometer data measured from a target asset to be repainted; receiving spectrophotometer data of the asset to be repainted from an end user of the graphical user interface, the spectrophotometer data retrieved from a hand-held spectrophotometric device connected to the digital display; (see paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 32, 34-35, 37 and #10-12, #20-22 of Figure 3 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses the method utilizing a computer to allow for the input of identified color characteristics of a target color to be matched. Rodrigues et al. further discloses utilizing a calorimeter or spectrophotometer to identify such color characteristics, the spectrophotometer comprising a docking station to transmit color data to the computer. Note, it is clear that in order to “input into a computer” such color data, the computer interface for doing so must inherently comprise some sort of “user interface” for “selecting” data measured for transmission from the spectrophotometer to the computer. Further, Rodrigues et al. also discloses explicitly discloses color matches on the display for user selection thereof.)
retrieving from a database a plurality of closest match colors and their associated formulations corresponding to the spectrophotometer data (see paragraphs 3, 9, 35 and #18 of Figure 3 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses the invention selecting alternate colors from a color database based upon the color characteristics corresponding to the spectrophotometer. Rodrigues et al. further explicitly discloses the color database containing color component associations (e.g. L*, a*, b*) that make up the alternatives with their paint formulations);
displaying on the graphical user interface a plurality of selectable color tiles corresponding to the retrieved closest match colors (see paragraphs 35, 38 and #18, 20 of Figure 3 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses displaying the alternate colors via at least color chips from the database on a display monitor and allowing the user to select the best color match alternative color.);
further displaying for each selectable color tile, an image and adjustment control for each of one or more selectable sub-component options;
upon adjustment by the end user, dynamically recalculating the formulation for at least one of the selectable color tiles based on stored colorimetric relationships;
displaying on the graphical user interface an adjusted image of the corresponding selectable color tile, wherein the adjusted image reflects an adjusted formulation of the corresponding retrieved closest match color displayed by the selected color tile; and
upon receipt of user selection through the graphical user interface of the adjusted image, displaying on the graphical user interface the adjusted formulation for the selected color displayed by the selected color tile.
Although Rodrigues et al. does disclose the color database storing color information represented by associations between color sub-components L*, a*, b* (see at least paragraph 35), Rodrigues et al. does not explicitly disclose further displaying an image and adjustment control for each of one or more selectable sub-component options that allow for adjustment and alteration of a formulation for the selected color based on stored colorimetric relationships. Axelrod discloses a color-appearance system directed to the organization of colors for use by artists (see column 1, lines 25-26). Axelrod discloses organizing colors in variant-hue charts for display and interaction within a color picker upon a computer screen (see column 6, lines 48-55). Axelrod discloses displaying colors in multiple different shaped “swatches” along with allowing for such colors to be indexed by a database to reference color-matching formulas of manufacturers (see column 18, lines 34-63 and Figures 22A-C and 23-D). Axelrod further discloses displaying color formulas in a graphical user interface that simulates each sub-component mixing values for example, when an artist mixes oil paints together (see at least column 20, lines 45-37 and Figures 29-30). Axelrod also discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A). Note, it is clear that the adjusted sub-components (e.g. hue angle, saturation, value) allow a user to select and adjust an “original” color to arrive at a “new” color using the GUI tools as shown by the prior art reference in Figure 8-A of Axelrod. Lastly, at least the circular selectable “foreground color” interface element of Figure 8-A can be considered functionally equivalent to “an image for each of one or more selectable sub-component options” and at least the slider input control can be considered functionally equivalent to, an “adjustment control.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the color paint matching and database retrieval techniques of Rodrigues et al. with the artist color palette display and interaction techniques of Axelrod in order to provide color selection techniques that index color elements to formulas and established databases for facilitating the mixing and matching of custom colors, combinations and formulas for duplicating such color mixtures (see column 6, lines 19-24 of Axelrod). Neither Rodrigues et al. or Axelrod however explicitly disclose dynamically recalculating a formulation for the selectable color based on stored colorimetric relationships upon adjustment by the user. McClanahan et al. discloses a method and system for determining a paint formula that matches a color of a paint of an object (see paragraphs2 and 8). McClanahan et al. discloses the system implementing a portable device comprising a color display that may display a representation of a color defined by a color/paint formula and/or variations of the paint formula (see paragraph 41 and Figures 2-3). McClanahan et al. discloses the color display displaying a representation of paint formula or a variation and allowing for user input to adjust the formula via adjustment information (see paragraph 43). McClanahan et al. further discloses the portable device, working in conjunction with a database, would then adjust the paint formula based on the adjustment information while the color display would display the adjusted paint formula (see paragraph 43). Note, the Examiner interprets such functionality in McClanahan et al. equivalent to Applicant’s “dynamically recalculating formulation…based on stored colorimetric relationships.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the color formula display, user input and dynamic adjustment techniques of McClanahan et al. with the color database paint matching and artistic color palette displaying techniques of Rodrigues et al. and Axelrod in order to provide a real-time color/paint formulation system that allows designers iteratively and interactively select, view and adjust paint/colors thereby creating a greater ease-of-use and more efficient color processing device.
In reference to claim 21, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 20 above. Axelrod discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A). Axelrod discloses the modification of sub-components blending colors into one another (see column 26, lines 52-55 and Figure 8-A).
In reference to claim 22, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 20 above. Although Axelrod does disclose displaying a selected color swatch with a 3D effect (see for example #80 of Figure 22-A) and further as pieces of a pie-type color chart which inherently comprise “curved” edges (see at least #86, 87 of Figure 22-B), none of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod or McClanahan et al. explicitly disclose the color swatch comprising together a “3D” with “one or more curves.” At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the color swatch display techniques of at least Axelrod in the combination of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al., to display swatches comprising both 3D appearances with curved lines. Applicant has not disclosed that explicitly displaying color swatches in this manner provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the teachings of the combination of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. because Axelrod already teaches these features being displayed separately and combining a 3D display of color swatches with curved edges is a matter of design choice as preferred by the inventor and/or to which best suits the application at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the combination of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
In reference to claim 23, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 20 above. Axelrod discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A). Axelrod explicitly discloses one of the sub-components for adjustment being “value” which is adjustable from 0-100 and at least inherently provides a “tint” adjustment for the other listed color sub-components (hue angle, saturation and value) (see #158 of Figure 8A).
In reference to claim 24, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 20 above. Rodrigues et al. explicitly discloses allowing for the selection of best “flake” appearance when making the selection of alternate best color match (see paragraphs 39 and 53) of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “sparkle” characteristic. Axelrod discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the color paint matching and database retrieval techniques of Rodrigues et al. with the artist color palette display and interaction techniques of Axelrod in order to provide color selection techniques that index color elements to formulas and established databases for facilitating the mixing and matching of custom colors, combinations and formulas for duplicating such color mixtures (see column 6, lines 19-24 of Axelrod).
In reference to claim 25, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 20 above. Axelrod discloses displaying color formulas in a graphical user interface that simulates each sub-component mixing values for example, when an artist mixes oil paints together (see at least column 20, lines 45-37 and Figures 29-30). Axelrod discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A).
In reference to claims 26 and 27, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 25 above. Rodrigues et al. explicitly discloses that the alternate colors that are selected from the database based upon the color characteristics of the target color to be matched are visually displayed to enable comparison between the two colors (see at least paragraph 9). Axelrod discloses displaying color formulas in a graphical user interface that simulates each sub-component mixing values for example, when an artist mixes oil paints together (see at least column 20, lines 45-37 and Figures 29-30). Axelrod discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A). McClanahan et al. discloses the color display displaying a representation of paint formula or a variation and allowing for user input to adjust the formula via adjustment information (see paragraph 43). McClanahan et al. further discloses the portable device, working in conjunction with a database, would then adjust the paint formula based on the adjustment information while the color display would display the adjusted paint formula (see paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the color formula display, user input and dynamic adjustment techniques of McClanahan et al. with the color database paint matching and artistic color palette displaying techniques of Rodrigues et al. and Axelrod in order to provide a real-time color/paint formulation system that allows designers iteratively and interactively select, view and adjust paint/colors thereby creating a greater ease-of-use and more efficient color processing device.
In reference to claim 30, Rodrigues et al. discloses a computer-implemented method for displaying a color and formula adjustment of an asset to be repainted (see paragraphs 1 and 5 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses a method for matching paint on vehicles which utilizes a video monitor display to assist the user in selecting an optimally matched color coating.), comprising:
providing through a digital display a graphical user interface comprising one or more selectable elements for retrieving spectrophotometer data measured from a target asset to be repainted; receiving spectrophotometer data of the asset to be repainted from an end user of the graphical user interface, the spectrophotometer data of a target asset retrieved from a hand-held spectrophotometric device connected to the digital display (see paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 32, 34-35, 37 and #10-12, #20-22 of Figure 3 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses the method utilizing a computer to allow for the input of identified color characteristics of a target color to be matched. Rodrigues et al. further discloses utilizing a calorimeter or spectrophotometer to identify such color characteristics, the spectrophotometer being hand-held and comprising a docking station to transmit color data to the computer. Note, it is clear that in order to “input into a computer” such color data, the computer interface for doing so must inherently comprise some sort of “user interface” for “selecting” data measured for transmission from the spectrophotometer to the computer. Further, Rodrigues et al. also discloses explicitly discloses color matches on the display for user selection thereof.);
retrieving from a database, a plurality of closest match colors and associated formulations corresponding to the spectrophotometer data (see paragraphs 3, 9, 35 and #18 of Figure 3 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses the invention selecting alternate colors from a color database based upon the color characteristics corresponding to the spectrophotometer.);
displaying on the graphical user interface a plurality of selectable color tiles corresponding to the retrieved closest match colors and their associated formulations (see paragraphs 35, 38 and #18, 20 of Figure 3 wherein Rodrigues et al. discloses displaying the alternate colors via at least color chips from the database on a display monitor and allowing the user to select the best color match alternative color.), and further displaying, for each color tile, an image and adjustment control for one or more selectable sub-component options that, when adjusted by the end user, alters the associated formulation for at least one of the selectable color tiles;
upon adjustment of any of the one or more selectable sub-component options, retrieving from the database a plurality of alternate formulations that are identified as closest matched to the adjusted sub-component option and the corresponding selectable color tile; and
displaying an image of the retrieved plurality of alternate formulas in the form of corresponding selectable alternate color tiles, each alternate color tile being rendered to visually represent its associated alternate formulation.
Although Rodrigues et al. does disclose the color database storing color information represented by associations between color sub-components L*, a*, b* (see at least paragraph 35) and also discloses that the alternate colors that are selected from the database based upon the color characteristics of the target color to be matched are visually displayed to enable comparison between the two colors (see at least paragraph 9), Rodrigues et al. does not explicitly disclose further displaying an image for each of one or more selectable sub-component options that allow for adjustment and alteration of a formular for the selected color. Axelrod discloses a color-appearance system directed to the organization of colors for use by artists (see column 1, lines 25-26). Axelrod discloses organizing colors in variant-hue charts for display and interaction within a color picker upon a computer screen (see column 6, lines 48-55). Axelrod discloses displaying colors in multiple different shaped “swatches” along with allowing for such colors to be indexed by a database to reference color-matching formulas of manufacturers (see column 18, lines 34-63 and Figures 22A-C and 23-D). Axelrod further discloses displaying color formulas in a graphical user interface that simulates each sub-component mixing values for example, when an artist mixes oil paints together (see at least column 20, lines 45-37 and Figures 29-30). Axelrod also discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A). Note, it is clear that the adjusted sub-components (.e.g. hue angle, saturation, value) allow a user to select and adjust an “original” color to arrive at a “new” color using the GUI tools as shown by the prior art reference in Figure 8-A of Axelrod. Lastly, at least the circular selectable “foreground color” interface element of Figure 8-A can be considered functionally equivalent to “an image for each of one or more selectable sub-component options” as it is shown to comprise the abovementioned sub-components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the color paint matching and database retrieval techniques of Rodrigues et al. with the artist color palette display and interaction techniques of Axelrod in order to provide color selection techniques that index color elements to formulas and established databases for facilitating the mixing and matching of custom colors, combinations and formulas for duplicating such color mixtures (see column 6, lines 19-24 of Axelrod). Neither Rodrigues et al. or Axelrod however explicitly disclose upon adjustment, retrieving from the database a plurality of alternate formulations that are identified as closest matched to the adjusted sub-component. McClanahan et al. discloses a method and system for determining a paint formula that matches a color of a paint of an object (see paragraphs2 and 8). McClanahan et al. discloses the system implementing a portable device comprising a color display that may display a representation of a color defined by a color/paint formula and/or variations of the paint formula (see paragraph 41 and Figures 2-3). McClanahan et al. discloses the color display displaying a representation of paint formula or a variation and allowing for user input to adjust the formula via adjustment information (see paragraph 43). McClanahan et al. further discloses the portable device, working in conjunction with a database, would then adjust the paint formula based on the adjustment information while the color display would display the adjusted paint formula (see paragraph 43). Note, the Examiner interprets such functionality in McClanahan et al. equivalent to Applicant’s “retrieving from the databases a plurality of alternat formulations that are identified as closest matched…” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the color formula display, user input and dynamic adjustment techniques of McClanahan et al. with the color database paint matching and artistic color palette displaying techniques of Rodrigues et al. and Axelrod in order to provide a real-time color/paint formulation system that allows designers iteratively and interactively select, view and adjust paint/colors thereby creating a greater ease-of-use and more efficient color processing device. Lastly note, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of the cited prior would arrive at the “displaying…each alternate color tile being rendered to visually represent its associated alternate formulation” as the teachings of displaying one or more selectable elements or color tiles is provided by the teachings of at least Rodrigues et al. and Axelrod while the “alternate formulations” teachings have been shown as taught by the cited prior art of McClanahan et al. as seen above.
In reference to claims 31-33, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 30 above. Rodrigues et al. explicitly discloses that the alternate colors that are selected from the database based upon the color characteristics of the target color to be matched are visually displayed to enable comparison between the two colors (see at least paragraph 9). Axelrod discloses displaying color formulas in a graphical user interface that simulates each sub-component mixing values for example, when an artist mixes oil paints together (see at least column 20, lines 45-37 and Figures 29-30). Axelrod discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A).
In reference to claims 34 and 35, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 30 above. Axelrod discloses a prior art color picker that allows a user to adjust selected color sub-components and displays a modified sub-component color in a new color swatch (see at least Figure 8-A). Axelrod explicitly discloses one of the sub-components for adjustment being “value” which is adjustable via a slider from 0-100 and at least inherently provides a “tint” adjustment for the other listed color sub-components (hue angle, saturation and value) (see #158 of Figure 8A). Note as per claim 35, it can further be seen that “value” indicator of Axelrod is functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “travel in a color” measure.
In reference to claim 36, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 30 above. Axelrod does disclose displaying a selected color swatch with a 3D effect (see for example #80 of Figure 22-A).
Claim(s) 28-29 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al. (U.S. 2005/0128484), Axelrod (U.S. Patent 8,089,482), McClanahan et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0032965) and further in view of Caruso et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0170840).
In reference to claims 28 and 37, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claims 20 and 30 respectively above. None of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod or McClanahan et al. explicitly disclose displaying a popularity rating beside the color swatch. Caruso et al. discloses a computer implemented method that provides a database of digital images of colors and metadata related to the colors and using one or more search criteria to identify one or more colors (see paragraph 7). Caruso et al. discloses the invention displaying a GUI showing a selected color and a polarity indication next to it (see paragraph 24 and Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the color popularity indexing and displaying techniques of Caruso et al. with the artist color paint matching and database retrieval/adjustment and interaction techniques of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and McClanahan et al. in order to aid in the selection of colors using multiple different criteria including color popularity making it easier to decide on colors when designing and/or decorating (see paragraphs 21, 25 and 29 of Caruso et al.).
In reference to claims 29 and 38, Rodrigues et al., Axelrod, McClanahan et al. and Caruso et al. disclose all of the claim limitations of claims 28 and 37 respectively above. Although Caruso et al. already discloses retrieving colors based upon metadata and more particularly color popularity (see for example paragraphs 14, 21 and 24), none of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod, McClanahan et al. or Caruso et al. explicitly disclose displaying a geographic region corresponding to the popularity rating. At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display a multitude of different information associated with database queried color data including popularity based upon geographic information. Applicant has not disclosed that explicitly providing such detailed limitation of displaying color popularity associated with geography provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the teachings of the combination of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod, McClanahan et al. and Caruso et al. because the exact information displayed with the selected/queried color swatch, in this instance, is a matter of engineering design choice as preferred by the inventor and/or to which best suits the application at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the combination of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod, McClanahan et al. and Caruso et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 29 and 38 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/23/25, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn since amendments to the specification now account for the reference numbers previously indicated as missing.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/23/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20-38 under 35 USC 102 & 103 in view of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod and Caruso et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rodrigues et al., Axelrod, McClanahan et al. and Caruso et al.
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 Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
2/20/26