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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application amendment filed on 06/05/2026.
CONTINUING DATA: This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/134621 11/28/2022
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS: CHINA 202111443885.9 11/30/2021
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 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9-10 recite: “wherein the custom effect program file is a file in a format supported by a node system” There is no mention in the original specification defining “a node system”. Thus, the limitation includes subject matter that was not described in the original specification.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original specification that describes the feature of the present invention, then applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this office action.
Applicant may obviate this rejection by canceling the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Craig Boehman (Boehman, “How To Create and Save Custom LUTs in Photoshop”, 10/18/2021) in view of Winnemoeller (US 2021/0311619 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Boehman discloses an image effect package generation method, comprising: creating an initial effect resource through a user-triggered creation operation (pg.3- pg.4; user initiates a custom effect filter (LUT) by creating adjustment layers);
importing a custom effect program file into the initial effect resource through a user-triggered import operation, to obtain a custom effect resource (pg.13-pg.14; a custom effect filter file is loaded);
creating a custom effect control based on the custom effect resource (pg.5-pg.6; user applies different effect filters by layers on top of the background image); and
generating a custom image effect package based on the custom effect control (pg.11-pg.14; the layered effect package is saved as a custom effect). Boehman does not expressly disclose wherein the custom effect program file is a file in a format supported by a node system.
In the same field of endeavor, Winnemoeller discloses custom effects supported by a node system (fig. 5A; [0020], [0033], [0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Boehman and Winnemoeller before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the custom image filter extensions taught by Boehman to include the above limitation taught by Winnemoeller with the motivation being to provide enhance flexibility and reusability by using a node based graphics edition system (Winnemoeller, [0004]).
As to claim 2, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the importing a custom effect program file into the initial effect resource through a user-triggered import operation, to obtain a custom effect resource comprises: obtaining the custom effect program file from a set storage path; importing the custom effect program file to a resource panel through the user-triggered import operation; and adding the custom effect program file, which is imported to the resource panel, to the initial effect resource, to obtain the custom effect resource (Boehman, pg.13-14; custom effect file is loaded and applied as a single layer to a new effect resource).
As to claim 3, the prior art as combined discloses before the creating an initial effect resource through a user-triggered creation operation, further comprising: editing the custom effect program file in a set editor through an edit operation of a user; and storing the custom effect program file into the set storage path (Boehman, pg.12-pg.13; the custom effect file is named and saved).
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the custom effect program file contains configuration information, general parameter information, and shading information (Boehman, pg.5; information such as density, shadow, midtones, highlights, etc. are saved).
INDEPENDENT claim 9 is an electronic device variance of claim 1, therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
INDEPENDENT claim 10 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium variance of claim 1, therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 11 is an electronic device variance of claim 2, therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 12 is an electronic device variance of claim 3, therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Claim 16 is an electronic device variance of claim 7, therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Claim 17 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium variance of claim 2, therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium variance of claim 3, therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 13-15 and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights