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 .
According to paper filed July 21st 2024, claims 1-40 are pending for examination with an August 6th 2012 priority date under 35 USC §120 and 35 USC §119(e). Claims 1-20 are canceled.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,989,802 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: all elements in the independent claims are similar.
Most of all, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 21, 24-29, 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al. (US 2009/0262130), hereinafter Ramirez, and further in view of Hsu (US 2012/0203371), hereinafter Hsu.
Claim 21
“providing a user interface comprising a color picker and a scheme picker” Ramirez [0008] teaches a graphical design application that allows a user to create and edit a graphical design including a color palette for users to select the colors (i.e., color picker) and change a color scheme (i.e., scheme picker);
“receiving a selection of a color scheme from said scheme picker, wherein said color scheme comprises principal colors and associated subordinate colors per principal color in a matrix format” Ramirez [0026] teaches selection … color scheme and [0033] teaches “a first color scheme variation and a second color scheme variation”, and [0035][0036] teaches “a subset of the color in the color scheme; Ramirez fails to spell out the colors “in a matrix format”, said feature is taught in Hsu [0060], a table (i.e., matrix form) with pairs of colors and their associated calculated metrics;
“modifying and processing said selected color scheme, said modifying and processing comprising: adjusting brightness and maintaining said adjusted brightness within said modified color scheme, and creating uniformity between said subordinate colors positioned in a same row but in different columns in said matrix” Ramirez [0029] teaches the HSL (hue, saturation, luminosity) model which represents the color of a pixel in terms of hue (pure color), saturation; (intensity of the color), and luminosity (brightness), and [0038] teaches “the color scheme variation control 200 will automatically update the color scheme;
“storing said processed color scheme in a database; and applying said processed color scheme to a document component” Hsu [0043] teaches a content database that stores content such as various layouts, pattern designs, and color schemes.
Ramirez and Hsu disclose analogous art. Hsu is analogous because it is in the field of converting an image to a color-reduced image suitable for embroidery and have colors mapped only to available embroidery thread colors. Ramirez does not spell out the colors “in a matrix format” as recited above. It is disclosed in Hsu. (Hsu [0060]: a table with pairs of colors and their associated calculated metrics). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of Hsu into Ramirez to enhance its color assigning functions.
Claim 23
“adjusting brightness comprises calculating a perceived brightness value for colors in said color scheme” Ramirez [0029] discloses “the HSL (hue, saturation, luminosity) model which represents the color of a pixel in terms of hue (pure color), saturation; (intensity of the color), and luminosity (brightness)” and
[0038] discloses “the color scheme variation control 200 will automatically update the color scheme”.
Claim 24
“calculating said perceived brightness value uses different weights for different hues” Hsu [0035] teaches merge of two thread colors is ranked by a weighted combination of the metrics, the weight afforded to each metric can be tuned for the typical images expected to be processed.
Claim 25
“creating uniformity comprises adapting a target column to a base column by adjusting saturation and perceived brightness values of cells in said target column” Ramirez [0029] teaches “the HSL (hue, saturation, luminosity) model which represents the color of a pixel in terms of hue (pure color), saturation; (intensity of the color), and luminosity (brightness)” and [0038] discloses “the color scheme variation control 200 will automatically update the color scheme”.
Claim 26
“applying a subordinate color override to modify a subordinate color in said color scheme” Ramirez [0035] teaches “at least a subset of colors in the respective color scheme. The subset of colors selected for the displayed swatch may be selected according to any desired selection criteria” and Ramirez [0038] discloses “the color scheme variation control 200 will automatically update the color scheme”.
Claim 27
“said subordinate color override is a relative override that modifies saturation and lightness valued while keeping hue constant” Ramirez [0029] teaches “the HSL (hue, saturation, luminosity) model which represents the color of a pixel in terms of hue (pure color), saturation; (intensity of the color), and luminosity (brightness)” and [0038] discloses “the color scheme variation control 200 will automatically update the color scheme”. The “keeping hue constant” is construed as “without changing hue” and cited excerpts do not change the hue.
Claim 28
“said subordinate color override is an absolute override that selects a new color independently of a current color in a cell” Ramirez [0026] teaches selection … color scheme” and [0033] teaches “a first color scheme variation and a second color scheme variation”.
Claim 29
“applying a principal color override to modify a principal color and its associated subordinate colors in said color scheme” Ramirez [0033] teaches a first color scheme variation and a second color scheme variation, and Ramirez [0038] teaches the color scheme variation control 200 will automatically update the color scheme.
Claim 31
“a color processor configured to apply said processed color scheme to a document component” Ramirez [0045] teaches a processor executes the instructions of the graphical design application, and its graphical user interface and color scheme variation control.
Claim 31 is also rejected for the similar rationale given for claim 21.
Claims 33-39
Claims 33-39 are rejected for the rationale given for claims 23-29 respectively.
Claims 22 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al. (US 2009/0262130), hereinafter Ramirez, and further in view of Rush et al. (US 2005/0240881), hereinafter Rush.
Claim 22
“inverting said selected color scheme by reversing a row order in each column while retaining an association of elements of said document to specific positions in said selected color scheme” Rush [0167] teaches “Invert (not shown) is a check box, that when checked inverts the color scheme order of bar graph 36 from red, yellow, green to green, yellow, red. Up to twenty progress indicators may be identified for each document or sub-document instance node”.
Ramirez, Hsu, and Rush disclose analogous art. Hsu is analogous because it is in the field of converting an image to a color-reduced image suitable for embroidery and have colors mapped only to available embroidery thread colors. Rush is analogous because it is in the field of software interface systems for providing quick and intuitive navigation to stored information normally available in different business documents. Ramirez does not spell out the colors “in a matrix format” as recited above. It is disclosed in Hsu. (Hsu [0060]: a table with pairs of colors and their associated calculated metrics). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of Hsu into Ramirez to enhance its color assigning functions. Still, Ramirez does not spell out the colors “inverting selected color scheme” as recited above. It is disclosed in Rush. (Rush [0167]: when invert check box is checked inverts the color scheme order of bar graph 36 from red, yellow, green to green, yellow, red.). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of Rush into Ramirez to enhance its color scheme selection manipulations.
Claim 30
“said principal color override applies a subordinate color column generation algorithm to create variations of said modified principal color having appropriate perceived brightness values” Ramirez [0026] teaches selection of color scheme and [0033] teaches a first color (i.e., principal color) scheme variation and a second color (i.e., subordinate color) scheme variation; Ramirez [0029] teaches the HSL (hue, saturation, luminosity) model which represents the color of a pixel in terms of hue (pure color), saturation; (intensity of the color), and luminosity (brightness); Ramirez fails to spell out the algorithm as claimed, it is taught in Hsu, Hsu Figures 7D-7E & [0027] depict color reduced down algorithm and teaches a mean-shift algorithm that smooths the image to continuous color tones.
Claims 32 & 40
Claims 32 and 40 are rejected for the rationale given for claims 22 and 30 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUAY HO whose telephone number is (571)272-6088; RightFax number is (571)
273-6088. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to 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, David Yi can be reached on 571-270-7519. 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.
/Ruay Ho/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126